22222 research outputs found
Sort by
Bowers, Lawrence and Obergefell: A Case-by-Case Analysis
No full textWhat does Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges all have in common? Each of these Supreme Court cases chronicles the passage of time and advancement in LGBTQ+ rights in America. Not only, however, do they chronicle the rights that have been achieved for LGBTQ+ individuals, but they also chronicle the evolution of the Justices on the bench. These cases here help us understand the influences that encourage the Justice’s decision-making, whether it be the state of the law or the Court’s environment. By analyzing each case, we can understand not only how these cases were decided, but also how past cases would have been decided by our current Supreme Court bench
Plenary #2: From Passive Learners to Co-Creators: A Case Study on Open Pedagogy in First-Year Writing
No full textThis presentation examines an open pedagogy project co-created and co-taught by a First-Year Writing instructor and a Performing Arts and Humanities Librarian. We will discuss developing an open access project for ENG 102. We will also cover project steps, co-teaching strategies, the role of librarians in supporting open pedagogy, initial challenges, and share open access artifacts with the audience
Birds of a Feather Discussion
No full textJoin us for informal discussions about topics of interest to the open ed community: Artificial Intelligence & Open Education, Innovative Pedagogy, Building & Sustaining Infrastructure, Community Action/Advocac
The Unwanted Child: A Historical Note
Get PDFHistorically, the illegitimate child was unwanted: was filius nullius, or nobody\u27s child—a child without rights, and socially stigmatized. In many ways, both law and society conspired against these children. But both literature and the living law demonstrated that, in the 19th century, there were pockets of sympathy and understanding for these children. And the status of the illegitimate child changed over the years: both with regard to inheritance rights, and to position in society. Adoption law also made the unwanted, wanted—at least by the adopting parents. The marital status of parents became legally and socially more and more irrelevant over time: in the battle over abortion, for example. Today, in the age of the civil rights revolution, one of the groups that has come into its own is the so-called Bastard Nation
Splitting Equality: Access to Gender-Affirming Care in the Fourth Circuit
Get PDFThis Note critically examines the evolving legal landscape surrounding transgender individuals\u27 access to gender-affirming care in the United States, focusing on two pivotal cases before the Fourth Circuit: Kadel v. Folwell (North Carolina) and Fain v. Crouch (West Virginia). These cases present a constitutional and statutory challenge to the exclusion of medically necessary gender-affirming care from state health plans, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Note contextualizes these lawsuits within a broader historical trajectory of transgender rights, highlighting legal and cultural milestones that have shaped access to care and recognition. Drawing on precedent, including Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Bostock v. Clayton County, the analysis explores how gender identity is legally understood through the lens of sex discrimination. It further considers the persuasive value of medical consensus on the necessity of gender-affirming care, as endorsed by major health organizations. The paper identifies the legal inconsistencies and discriminatory rationales employed by states to deny this care and critiques the sociopolitical underpinnings of such exclusions. By comparing the different factual and legal circumstances of Kadel and Fain, the Note argues that the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to affirm constitutional protections for transgender persons. It proposes a legally and politically viable middle ground: requiring states to provide coverage for non-surgical interventions such as medication and psychotherapy, thereby upholding basic standards of care while navigating judicial restraint. Ultimately, the Note underscores that the outcome of these joined en banc proceedings will significantly influence future litigation, legislative efforts, and the lived realities of transgender individuals. In doing so, it advocates for a legal framework rooted in equality, medical necessity, and the dignity of all persons under the law
Joyce Fields-Ray interview, 14 March 2025
No full textIn this 2025 interview, Joyce Fields-Ray discusses her life growing up in the Union-Miles neighborhood. She describes frequently-visited businesses, such as restaurants, ice cream parlors, and roller skating rinks. She recounts her garden plot at the Miles Elementary School garden, early experiences of racism, and other memories from along Miles Avenue. At the end of the interview, she summarizes what has changed and stayed the same throughout the neighborhood
Myra Simmons Interview, 28 February 2025
No full textIn this 2025 interview, Myra Simmons discusses growing up off Kinsman Road in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood in the 1960s. She describes the long-standing businesses of her childhood, her childhood home, and her hobbies within and outside of school. She also talks about working at the steel mill for 42 years, her opinions of labor unions, and her later purchase of multiple homes in the neighborhood. The interview concludes with her hopes for the future and her advice for future generations
Mark Smith Interview, 25 February 2025
No full textIn this 2025 interview, Mark Smith, pastor at Sanctuary Baptist Church, talks about his early life in Hartford, Connecticut, his move to Cleveland, and his life in and outside of the church. He discusses his career path, his involvement in the Mt. Pleasant and Union-Miles neighborhoods, and his hopes for the future of Sanctuary Baptist Church
A Rendezvous with Destiny: The President\u27s FTC Removals and the Rule of Law
No full textIn March 2025, the President removed two commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The removed commissioners called the removals unlawful and challenged them in court, citing the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protection and the Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s. After President Roosevelt removed an FTC commissioner, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s in 1935 upheld the constitutionality of the FTC Act’s removal limitation based on the FTC being expert, nonpartisan/independent, quasi-judicial, and quasi-legislative. The Court in Seila in 2020 held that the President has “unrestricted removal power” as to the executive branch unless the Humphrey’s exception for “multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power” or the Perkins/Morrison exception for certain inferior officers applies. The latter is clearly inapposite here. But so is Humphrey’s. The modern FTC has nothing to do with the Humphrey’s quartet. It also wields considerable executive power under the tripartite framework outlined in Seila owing to Congress’s own choice since Humphrey’s to grant the FTC such powers. And today’s FTC has considerable authority in the international-relations context generally and in cross-border law enforcement in particular. Because today’s FTC exercises significant executive power, the FTC Act removal limitation is unconstitutional, and the President’s action was lawful. From it also comes a benefit to the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s treatment of Humphrey’s in recent years has both left in place, to quote Justice Thomas, a “direct threat to our constitutional structure” and caused great uncertainty in the lower courts, which, because the Court has expressly refused to overturn Humphrey’s, have consistently upheld the constitutionality of statutory removal limitations as to “multimember expert agencies” even if they “wield substantial executive power.” The President followed the Constitution, in light of, and not in spite of, precedent, and the Supreme Court now has the perfect vehicle—the same facts as Humphrey’s, albeit with a vastly different, fundamentally executive FTC—to end the uncertainty it has created and repudiate what it has left of that major threat to the Constitution