The 1866 Civil Rights Act is one of the most monumental pieces of legislation in American history, figuring into almost every subsequent piece of legislation dealing with civil rights for the next century. While numerous scholars have looked at it in the larger social and political context of Reconstruction and its relationship with the Fourteenth Amendment, this will be the first book that focuses on its central role in the long history of civil rights. As George Rutherglen argues, the Act has structured debates and controversies about civil rights up to the present. The history of the Act itself speaks to the fundamental issues that continue to surround civil rights law: the contested meaning of racial equality; the distinction between public and private action; the division of power between the states and the federal government; and the role of the Supreme Court and Congress in implementing constitutional principles. Slavery, Freedom, and Civil Rights shows that the Act was not just an archetypal piece of Radical Republican legislation or merely a precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. While its enactment led directly to passage of the amendment, their simultaneous existence going forward initiated a longstanding debate over the relationship between the two, and by proxy the Courts and Congress. How extensive was the Act's reach in relation to the Amendment? Could it regulate private discrimination? Supersede state law? What power did it endow to Congress, as opposed to the Courts? The debate spawned an important body of judicial doctrine dealing with almost all of the major issues in civil rights, and this book positions both the Act and its legacy in a broad historical canvas.

View the Table of Contents

aFinally, an unflinching response to immigration alarmists! This brilliant, challenging book outlines an immigration proposal based on the reality that migration flows are not regulated by border enforcement but by social, economic, and political pressures.a
--Mary Romero, author of "Maid in the USA"

Seeking to re-imagine the meaning and significance of the international border, Opening the Floodgates makes a case for eliminating the border as a legal construct that impedes the movement of people into this country.

Open migration policies deserve fuller analysis, particularly on the eve of a presidential election. Kevin R. Johnson offers an alternative vision of how U.S. borders might be reconfigured, grounded in moral, economic, and policy arguments for open borders. Importantly, liberalizing migration through an open borders policy would recognize that the enforcement of closed borders cannot stifle the strong, perhaps irresistible, economic, social, and political pressures that fuel international migration.

Controversially, Johnson suggests that open borders are entirely consistent with efforts to prevent terrorism that have dominated immigration enforcement since the events of September 11, 2001. More liberal migration, he suggests, would allow for full attention to be paid to the true dangers to public safety and national security.

The enlargement of the EU has highlighted the challenges of compliance, but it has also helped to suggest new compliance methodologies. The combination of methodologies used by the EU and the differing levels of enforcement available are characteristic of the EU's compliance system, permitting the remarkable reach and penetration of EU norms into national systems. In this new study six authors offer their assessment of the enforcement procedures and compliance processes that have been developed to ensure Member State compliance with EU law. The first three chapters examine the merits of combing both coercive and problem-solving strategies, describing the systems in place and focusing on the different levels at which compliance mechanisms operate: national, regional, and international. It also looks at horizontal compliance as well as 'from above' compliance, creating a complex and rich picture of the EU's system.
The final three chapters of the book focus on different aspects of compliance seen from a national perspective. The first analyzes the two bases for the use of criminal sanctions to enforce EU law: the ability of Member States to choose to include criminal penalties for non-compliance in their national law; and the imposition of criminal sanctions at a national level by EU law itself. The book then moves on to a discussion of the role of national courts in ensuring Member State compliance with, and enforcement of, EU law. It examines the role of national constitutional courts in facilitating compliance with EU law and draws comparisons between EU law and international law and their interactions both with each other and with national constitutional courts.

As Americans wrestle with red-versus-blue debates over traditional values, defense of marriage, and gay rights, reason often seems to take a back seat to emotion. In response, David Richards, a widely respected legal scholar and long-time champion of gay rights, reflects upon the constitutional and democratic principles-relating to privacy, intimate life, free speech, tolerance, and conscience-that underpin these often heated debates.

The distillation of Richards's thirty-year advocacy for the rights of gays and lesbians, his book provides a reflective treatise on basic human rights that touch all of our lives. Drawing upon his own experiences as a gay man, Richards interweaves personal observations with philosophical, political, judicial, and psychological insights to make a compelling case that gays should be entitled to the same rights and protections that every American enjoys. Indeed, the call for gay rights can trace its lineage back to the powerful protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which demanded racial and sexual equality and ultimately overthrew the bigoted status quo.

Richards focuses particularly on two key Supreme Court cases: the 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick upholding Georgia's anti-sodomy laws and the 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas striking down Texas anti-sodomy laws and overturning Bowers. He shows how Bowers arose in a period of constitutional crisis over the right to privacy and examines the opinions in light of the Court's division in Roe v. Wade. He then shows that Lawrence must be understood in the context of later cases, notably Casey and Romer, which required that Bowers be reconsidered and overruled. Along the way, he examines current debates over gays in the military and same-sex marriage, assesses the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision to permit gay marriage, and critiques the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Eloquent and impassioned, Richards's work crystallizes the essence of the argument for a much more expansive and tolerant view of gay rights in America. It also offers a touching account of one gay man's very personal struggle to find the voice he needed to speak truth to the powerful forces of discrimination.

JOIN OVER HALF A MILLION STUDENTS WHO CHOSE TO REVISE WITH LAW EXPRESS Revise with the help of the UK's bestselling law revision series. Features: * Review essential cases, statutes, and legal terms before exams. * Assess and approach the subject by using expert advice. * Gain higher marks with tips for advanced thinking and further discussions. * Avoid common pitfalls with Don't be tempted to. * Practice answering sample questions and discover additional resources on the Companion website. www.pearsoned.co.uk/lawexpress

The essays which appear in this volume have been written to pay tribute to the Hon Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland and former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, on the occasion of his retirement. The overall theme of the book is the relationship between European Union law and national law, and the role of courts in defining that relationship. The book consists of four main parts - the structure and functioning of the European Court of Justice, material issues of European Union law, aspects of Irish law and transversal issues of national and European law. The contributors are all past and present members of the European bench, members or former members of the Irish judiciary or Bar and/or experts in European Union law, many of whom have worked with Mr Justice Fennelly during his long and distinguished career at the Bar and on the bench.

Despite the high-flown rhetoric of civil society, it cannot be denied that discrimination is still with us; it has merely gone "underground". In the European project, and particularly in the etiology of the EC Treaty's commitment to the free movement of persons, defenders of national sovereignty are often also defenders of inequality.;This text offers a fresh approach to this all-important issue that exposes, in rigorous and well-informed detail, a polity that defines discrimination correctly but then refuses to see it where it occurs. It approaches the law of free movement from a point of view that is regrettably uncommon: neither that of market integration, nor that of Member State sovereignty within the Union, but that of the individual dignity subsumed in the state-citizen relationship.;Focusing on the relevant caselaw of the European Court of Justice, the author shows that the law of cross-border movement in Europe can - and should - be guided by the principle of non-discrimination; and that, despite inconsistencies in its judgments, and a tendency to retreat to the neutral language of economics, the Court is "haunted" by the discriminatory principles inherent in formalistic European legal systems. Its jurisprudence will ultimately restructure them to impose respect for difference and equality before the law.

Constitutional 'losers' represent a thorny and longstanding problem in American constitutional law. Given our adversarial system, the way that rights cases are decided means that regardless of whether a losing side has committed any actions that cause harm to others, they typically suffer unnecessary harm as a consequence of decisions. In areas such as affirmative action and gay rights, the losers are essentially punished for losing despite neither intending nor causing injury.
In Losing Twice, Emily Calhoun draws upon conflict resolution theory, political theory, and Habermasian discourse theory to argue that in such cases, the Court must work harder to avoid inflicting unnecessary harm on Constitutional losers. But for this to happen, Calhoun contends, the role of judges needs to be reconceptualized. She contends that the Court should not perceive itself simply as an adversarial forum, but also as a 'transactional' one, where losers are not simply losers but participants in a process capable of addressing and ameliorating the effects that come with loss. Filled with lucid discussions of well known cases, Losing Twice offers an intellectually powerful argument for transforming the decision-making process in Constitutional rights disputes.

Globalisation, Law and the State begins - as is customary in globalisation literature - with an acknowledgement of the definitional difficulties associated with globalisation. Rather than labour the point, the book identifies some economic, political and cultural dimensions to the phenomenon and uses these to analyse existing and emerging challenges to State-centric and territorial models of law and governance. It surveys three areas that are typically associated with globalisation - financial markets, the internet, and public contracts - as well as trade more generally, the environment, human rights, and national governance. On this basis it considers how global legal norms are formed, how they enmesh with the norms of other legal orders, and how they create pressure for legal harmonisation. This, in turn, leads to an analysis of the corresponding challenges that globalisation presents to traditional notions of sovereignty and the models of public law that have grown from them. While some of the themes addressed here will be familiar to students of the European process (there are prominent references to the European experience throughout the book), Globalisation, Law and the State provides a clear insight into how the sovereign space of States and their legal orders are diminishing and being replaced by an altogether more fluid system of intersecting orders and norms. This is followed by an analysis of the theory and practice of the globalisation of law, and a suggestion that the workings of law in the global era can best be conceived of in terms of networks that link together a range of actors that exist above, below and within the State, as well as on either side of the public-private divide. This book is an immensely valuable, innovative and concise study of globalisation and its effect on law and the state.

In Constitutional Orphan, Professor Paula Monopoli explores the significant role of former suffragists in the constitutional development of the Nineteenth Amendment the woman suffrage amendment ratified in 1920. She sheds new light on the connection between the suffragists as institutional actors in civil society and the emergence of a "thin" conception of the Nineteenth Amendment as a mere nondiscrimination in voting rule, rather than a robust equality norm. In this compelling legal history, Monopoli illuminates how the Nineteenth had implications for federalism, women's citizenship and the definition of equality, as well as how gender, race and class intersect to affect our constitutional development. Monopoli explores the choice by both the National Woman's Party and the National American Woman Suffrage Association to turn away from African American suffragists who were denied the vote even after ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. Using original sources, legislative history and case analysis, she develops a persuasive theory connecting that moral and strategic failure to the emergence of a narrow interpretation of the amendment. Monopoli also evaluates the impact of class divisions among former suffragist allies. These divisions around support for the NWP's Equal Rights Amendment, found social feminists opposing that "blanket" amendment for fear of its impact on the constitutional validity of protective labor legislation for working-class women. Monopoli details how many state courts, left without federal enforcement legislation to guide them, used strict construction to cabin the emergence of a more robust interpretation of the Nineteenth Amendment, as a broad equality norm. She concludes with an examination of new legal scholarship that suggests ways in which such a robust understanding of the Nineteenth Amendment could be used today to expand gender equality. In this compelling legal history, Monopoli illuminates how gender, race and class intersect to affect our constitutional development.

Increasingly, European and other Western states have sought to control the movement of refugees outside their borders. To do this, states have adopted a variety of measures - including carrier sanctions, interception of migrants at sea, posting of immigration officers in foreign countries and external processing of asylum-seekers. This book focuses on the legal implications of external mechanisms of migration control for the protection of refugees and irregular migrants. The book explores how refugee and human rights law has responded to the new measures adopted by states, and how states have sought cooperation with other actors in the context of migration control. The book defends the thesis that when European states attempt to control the movement of migrants outside their territories, they remain responsible under international law for protecting the rights of refugees as well as their general human rights. It also identifies how EU law governs and constrains the various types of pre-border migration enforcement employed by EU Member States, and examines how unfolding practices of external migration control conform with international law. This is a work which will be essential reading for scholars and practitioners of asylum and refugee law throughout Europe and the wider world. The book received 'The Max van der Stoel Human Rights Award 2011' (first prize category dissertations); and the 'Erasmianum Study Prize 2011'.

When the Founders penned the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, it was not difficult to identify the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" they meant to protect; nor was it hard to understand what "unreasonable searches and seizures" were. The Fourth Amendment was intended to stop the use of general warrants and writs of assistance and applied primarily to protect the home. Flash forward to a time of digital devices, automobiles, the war on drugs, and a Supreme Court dominated by several decades of the jurisprudence of crime control, and the legal meaning of everything from "effects" to "seizures" has dramatically changed. Michael C. Gizzi and R. Craig Curtis make sense of these changes in The Fourth Amendment in Flux. The book traces the development and application of search and seizure law and MYUjurisprudence over time, with particular emphasis on decisions of the Roberts Court. Cell phones, GPS tracking devices, drones, wiretaps, the Patriot Act, constantly changing technology, and a political culture that emphasizes crime control create new challenges for Fourth Amendment interpretation and jurisprudence. This work exposes the tensions caused by attempts to apply pretechnological legal doctrine to modern problems of digital privacy. In their analysis of the Roberts Court's relevant decisions, Gizzi and Curtis document the different approaches to the law that have been applied by the justices since the Obama nominees took their seats on the court. Their account, combining law, political science, and history, provides insight into the court's small group dynamics, and traces changes regarding search and seizure law in the opinions of one of its longest serving members, Justice Antonin Scalia. At a time when issues of privacy are increasingly complicated by technological advances, this overview and analysis of Fourth Amendment law is especially welcome-an invaluable resource as weaddress the enduring question of how to balance freedom against security in the context of the challenges of the twenty-firstcentury.

Delegating Rights Protection explores bill-of-rights outcomes in four "Westminster" countries - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom - whose development exhibit an interesting combination of both commonality and difference. Comparative analysis of some thirty-six democracies demonstrates that the historic absence of a bill of rights in Westminster countries is best explained by, firstly, the absence of a clear political transition and, secondly, their strong British constitutional heritage. Detailed chapters then explore recent and much more diversified developments. In all the countries, postmaterialist socio-economic change has resulted in a growing emphasis on legal formalization, codified civil liberties, and social equality. Pressure for a bill of rights has therefore increased. Nevertheless, by enhancing judicial power, bills of rights conflict with the prima facie positional interests of the political elite. Given this, change in this area has also required a political trigger which provides an immediate rationale for change. Alongside social forces, the nature of this trigger determines the strength and substance of the bill of rights enacted. The statutory Canadian Bill of Rights Act (1960), New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990), and the Human Rights Act (UK) (1998) were prompted politically by a relatively weak and backward-looking 'aversive' reaction against perceived abuses of power under the previous administration. Meanwhile, the fully constitutional Canadian Charter (1982) had its political origins in a stronger, more self-interested and prospective need to find a new unifying institution to counter the destabilizing, centripetal power of the Quebecois nationalist movement. Finally, the absence of any relevant political trigger explains the failure of national bill of rights initiatives in Australia. The conclusionary section of the book argues that this Postmaterialist Trigger Thesis (PTT) explanation of change can also explain the origins of bills of rights in other internally stable, advanced democracies, notably the Israeli Basic Laws on human rights (1992).

aThe uniquely American sense of freedom that makes the First Amendment so beloved and so respected in its homeland is precisely what makes it a difficult model for constitutional protection of expression in other political systems. In this survey of free speech policies in Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, Krotosyznski introduces American students and scholars of constitutional law to a diverse range of culturally contingent approaches to protecting the freedom of expression in other industrialized countries. . . . As Krotosyznskias fascinating project demonstrates, comparative constitutional analysis challenges us as Americans to examine critically the cultural assumptions underlying our legal system.a
--Jim Chen, University of Minnesota Law School

"There are very few scholars who are willing to read as widely in the law of the world as Krotoszynski, and very few who are capable of forming such confident and intelligent judgments."
--James Whitman, Yale Law School

"For better or worse recent Supreme Court jurisprudence evidences a growing struggle over whether and, if so, how to address foreign court decisions. Ronald Krotoszynski's first-rate analysis of the comparative dimension of free speech issues could not be more timely. Not only does his work shed important light on free speech, but it informs as well."
--Michael Heise, Cornell Law School

"Krotoszynski has produced one of the best examples of the growing literature on comparative public law. His analysis of free speech law in four modern democracies is distinctive in that it goes beyond merely describing the rules governing expression in those countries to address the deeper differences incultural attitudes that explain the disparate legal outcomes. His sophisticated treatment of the intersecting lines of theory, doctrine, and culture makes this the most thorough and compelling assessment of comparative free speech law on the market today."
--Steven G. Gey, David and Deborah Fonvielle & Donald and Janet Hinkle Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law

Krotoszynskias conclusions are revealing and forcefully presented. This is especially so when they are based on the authoras sophisticated and copiously documented comparison of the US with four advanced legal systems committed to participatory politics. The book undoubtedly challenges many of us who smugly accept American aexceptionalisma in freedom of speech and the press...Krotoszynski helps us appreciate the value of comparative free speech with a new, penetrating perspective.a
--"The Law and Politics Book Review"

The First Amendment --and its guarantee of free speech for all Americans--has been at the center of scholarly and public debate since the birth of the Constitution, and the fervor in which intellectuals, politicians, and ordinary citizens approach the topic shows no sign of abating as the legal boundaries and definitions of free speech are continually evolving and facing new challenges. Such discussions have generally remained within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and its American context, but consideration of free speech in other industrial democracies can offer valuable insights into the relationship between free speech and democracy on a larger and more global scale, thereby shedding new light on some unexamined (and untested) assumptions that underlie U.S. free speechdoctrine.

Ronald Krotoszynski compares the First Amendment with free speech law in Japan, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom--countries that are all considered modern democracies but have radically different understandings of what constitutes free speech. Challenging the popular--and largely American--assertion that free speech is inherently necessary for democracy to thrive, Krotoszynski contends that it is very difficult to speak of free speech in universalist terms when the concept is examined from a framework of comparative law that takes cultural difference into full account.

The first time Ravi Shankar was arrested, he spoke out against racist policing on National Public Radio and successfully sued the city of New York. The second time, he was incarcerated when his promotion to full professor was finalized. During his ninety-day pretrial confinement at the Hartford Correctional Center--a level 4, high-security urban jail in Connecticut--he met men who shared harrowing and heart-felt stories. The experience taught him about the persistence of structural racism, the limitations of mass media, and the pervasive traumas of twenty-first-century daily life. Shankar's bold and complex self-portrait--and portrait of America--challenges us to rethink our complicity in the criminal justice system and mental health policies that perpetuate inequity and harm. Correctional dives into the inner workings of his mind and heart, framing his unexpected encounters with law and order through the lenses of race, class, privilege, and his bicultural upbringing as the first and only son of South Indian immigrants. Vignettes from his early life set the scene for his spectacular fall and subsequent struggle to come to terms with his own demons. Many of them, it turns out, are also our own.

In the 20 years between 1895 and 1915, two key leaders-Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois-shaped the struggle for African American rights. This book examines the impact of their fierce debate on America's response to Jim Crow and positions on civil rights throughout the 20th century-and evaluates the legacies of these two individuals even today. The debate between W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington on how to further social and economic progress for African Americans lasted 20 years, from 1895 to Washington's death in 1915. Their ongoing conversation evolved over time, becoming fiercer and more personal as the years progressed. But despite its complexities and steadily accumulating bitterness, it was still, at its heart, a conversation-an impassioned contest at the turn of the century to capture the souls of black folk. This book focuses on the conversation between Washington and Du Bois in order to fully examine its contours. It serves as both a document reader and an authored text that enables readers to perceive how the back and forth between these two individuals produced a cacophony of ideas that made it anything but a bipolar debate, even though their expressed differences would ultimately shape the two dominant strains of activist strategy. The numerous chapters on specific topics and historical events follow a preface that presents an overview of both the conflict and its historiographical treatment; evaluates the legacies of both Washington and Du Bois, emphasizing the trajectories of their theories beyond 1915; and provides an explanation of the unique structure of the work. Offers a fresh exploration of the fascinating conversations and controversies between two of the most important African American leaders in history Provides an in-depth exploration of these two important leaders' perspectives and views on America's response to Jim Crow and civil rights that leads to significant new conclusions about historical information Presents the words of DuBois, Washington, and their allies as a conversation that enables readers to better understand the big-picture story of these two scholars

In this edited volume, an array of scholars has examined recent policymaking efforts in selected areas of contemporary importance. Government at Work: Policymaking in the Twenty-First Century Congress provides chapter-length treatment to reveal the similarities and fundamentals of policy development while also illustrating the unique issues and obstacles found in each policy environment. This book's scope spans the entire policymaking process, exposing the readers to the interaction among all major power centers, ranging from interest groups, media, courts, Congress, the president, and the federal bureaucracy. It shows the dynamic nature of American policymaking system. The approach employed in this book treats events, such as Congress passing a law or the Supreme Court announcing a ruling, as important steps in the policy process rather than as merely ends unto themselves. This volume focuses on major legislation passed by Congress since the turn of the century. It features one case study per chapter, demonstrating how issues rise to the national agenda, pass through the congressional labyrinth to become public policies, are implemented by the federal bureaucracy, receive feedback from affected elements of the society, and ultimately evolve over the years.

The Bonfire of the Liberties is a provocative book which confronts the corrosion of civil liberties under successive New Labour governments since 1997. It argues that the last decade has seen a wholesale failure of constitutional principle and exposed the futility of depending on legal rights to restrict the power of executive government. It considers the steps necessary to prevent the continued decline of political standards, arguing that only through rebalancing political power can civil liberties be adequately protected
Relying on extensive new research of inaccessible sources, the book examines the major battlegrounds over civil liberties under New Labour, including the growth and abuse of police power, state surveillance and counter-terrorist measures. It unfolds a compelling narrative of the major battles fought before Parliament and in the courts, and attacks the failure of the political and legal systems to offer protection to those suffering abuses of their civil liberty at the hands of an aggressive Executive. In doing so, it offers a definitive account of the struggle for civil liberty in modern Britain, and a controversial argument for the reforms necessary to contain executive power.

The exceptionality of America's Supreme Court has long been conventional wisdom. But the U.S. Supreme Court is no longer the only one changing the landscape of public rights and values. Over the past thirty years, the European Court of Human Rights has developed an ambitious, American-style body of law. Unheralded by the mass press, this obscure tribunal in Strasbourg, France, has become, in many ways, the Supreme Court of Europe. Michael D. Goldhaber introduces American audiences to the judicial arm of the Council of Europe - a group distinct from the European Union, and much larger - whose mission is centered on interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights. The council routinely confronts nations over their most culturally sensitive, hot-button issues. It has stared down France on the issue of Muslim immigration, Ireland on abortion, Greece on Greek Orthodoxy, Turkey on Kurdish separatism, Austria on Nazism, and Britain on gay rights and corporal punishment. And what is most extraordinary is that nations commonly comply. In the battle for the world's conscience, Goldhaber shows how the court in Strasbourg may be pulling ahead.