Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
Divine Detachment: Beachy v. Assemblies of God and a New Interpretation of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine
No full textIn the landmark case of Beachy v. Mississippi District Council for Assemblies of God, the Mississippi Supreme Court redefined its interpretation of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine—marking a pivotal shift in church-state jurisprudence. Traditionally, this doctrine instructed courts to defer to the highest internal authority of a church when deciding disputes within hierarchical religious organizations. However, the court’s decision in Beachy significantly departed from this principle by designating the local pastor and congregation as the supreme authority over local church affairs, even within a hierarchical structure.
This Casenote explores the profound implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling, focusing on its impact on church autonomy and the broader legal landscape. Although the Beachy Dissent reached a more technically accurate interpretation of the doctrine, the Majority pursued a socially conscientious application more favorable from a public policy standpoint. This Note analyzes how the majority’s approach benefits local churches and denominational hierarchies, fostering local church autonomy and leading to increased (rather than decreased) denominational affiliation. It also examines how the court’s decision protects minority religious beliefs from encroaching religious monopolies and simplifies courts’ application of the doctrine while safeguarding religious denominations’ property rights. Time will tell, however, whether the court’s decision truly detached the Mississippi judiciary from religion or instead serves to sacrifice impartiality on the altar of autonomy
Should the Army Be Involved in Divorce? Re-Examining the Pre-Divorce Defaults for Spousal Support
No full textArmy Regulation 608-99 assigns a large portion of a Soldier’s paycheck to the spouse upon marital separation. The assignment occurs without a hearing, discovery, or consideration of critical evidence which might moderate the amount of support. The obligation rests on the Soldier to obtain a court order or spousal agreement to reduce the financial burden. The adversarial nature of modern divorces renders these requirements unrealistic. Amending the regulation would ease the burden of the Soldier, which is desirable in light of the ongoing recruitment crisis and the need to attract recruits and retain those already in the service
Auer Deference: He Who Writes the Law Must Not Adjudge its Violation
No full textThis Comment explores Auer deference and its application to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission, and its commentary. Auer deference, in its simplest form, requires courts to give controlling weight to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Following the Court’s decision in Kisor—expressly limiting Auer’s application, the circuit courts have disagreed on the applicability of Auer to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary regarding career offender designation. This disagreement begs for an appearance before the Court of Last Resort, but until that day, the courts must rigidly apply Kisor to deference cases. A stricter application will prevent administrative agencies from circumventing notice-and-comment procedures, conforming to the traditional canons of construction, and promoting clarity in rulemaking for the benefit of the public
The History of Policing and the Impact on Minority Communities: The Case Against Police Abolition
Full text linkThis article critically examines the implications of former FBI Director James Comey’s assertions regarding the rise in violent crime and the phenomenon known as “The Ferguson Effect,” which posits that law enforcement officers are increasingly hesitant to engage in proactive policing due to fear of public backlash and viral scrutiny. Comey’s comments, made in a 2015 speech, sparked significant debate about the psychological impact of heightened scrutiny on police behavior and the potential consequences for public safety.
Through a multi-part analysis, the article first traces the historical development of policing in ancient civilizations and its evolution in the United States and the United Kingdom. It then addresses contentious legal doctrines governing police encounters, which have fueled public protests and discourse. The article further explores narratives surrounding race and policing, particularly the ramifications of abolitionist movements on black accountability and victimization.
In its final section, the article argues that calls for abolition are rooted in incomplete analyses and distortions of fact. It contends that such movements not only undermine the rule of law but also reflect a broader political agenda, drawing on Marxist theories of wealth redistribution rather than solely addressing issues of police violence and systemic racism. Ultimately, the article asserts the necessity of law enforcement in maintaining a civil, just, and orderly society, challenging the prevailing abolitionist discourse
Before Boone v. Lightner: The Lost History of Pro-Veteran Canon
Full text linkThe pro-veteran canon, a long-standing principle of statutory construction, has deep historical roots dating back to ancient times, as reflected in religious, legal, and historical texts. This principle, which favors a liberal interpretation of laws to benefit veterans, has evolved as societies sought to recognize and compensate the sacrifices of military service members. From the biblical era’s division of spoils to the Magna Carta’s contractual liberties, and through early English statutes and the American Revolution, this canon has shaped legal frameworks and influenced governance. Notably, U.S. jurisprudence, including foundational decisions like Marbury v. Madison, upheld the pro-veteran canon as a reflection of the nation’s gratitude and commitment to its veterans. This article traces the canon’s historical trajectory, critiques contemporary judicial interpretations, and argues for the continued acknowledgment of its profound historical significance in shaping legal protections for veterans