Sentences with phrase «equal protection challenge»

The case presents an equal protection challenge to U.S. immigration law that imposes different residency requirements on unwed citizen mothers than unwed citizen fathers when conferring citizenship on children born abroad out of wedlock.

BY ARTHUR S. LEONARD The seven - member Ohio Supreme Court unanimously rejected a free speech and equal protection challenge to the state's law making it a felony assault for a person who knows he is HIV - positive to engage in «sexual conduct» with another person without disclosing their HIV - positive status.

In 2012, education law professors Preston Green and Joseph Oluwole, and education finance professor Bruce Baker, published an article outlining specific legal and policy problems with VAM and teacher evaluations, focusing on due process challenges, equal protection challenges, and disparate impact firings.

Not exact matches

«It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims,» the judges wrote on Thursday.

The rational basis test is always applied first when a state or federal statute is challenged as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Those are all very recent outbursts of religious bigotry that have not been tested in the Supreme Court, where they face a nasty challenge in the form of Equal Protections.

In the brief, the AG challenges DOMA's constitutionality, saying it violates the right of married same - sex couples to equal protection of the law, intrudes on the state's power to define marriage and undermines the concept of federalism.

Cuomo on Wednesday said he will challenge the new law in court as unconstitutional on the grounds that the first federal double taxation in U.S. history violates states» rights and equal protection.

«We believe it is illegal and we will challenge it in court as unconstitutional... the first federal double - taxation in history, violative of states» rights and the principle of equal protection.»

For example, in the 2000 election, the Florida recount was challenged at the Supreme Court which decided that the proposed recount violated the Constitutionally - guaranteed right of equal protection.

As far as my research has been able to determine, there has never been a challenge to immigration enforcement based on equal protection.

Gorsuch joined the opinion in Petrella v. Brownback (2015), holding that students and parents have standing to challenge statutory provisions that cap school districts» ability to raise extra money through additional property taxes, on equal protection and due process grounds.

«Plaintiffs still could have demonstrated a facial equal protection violation, however, by showing that the challenged statutes, regardless of how they are implemented, inevitably cause poor and minority students to be provided with an education that is not «basically equivalent to» their more affluent and / or white peers.»

Plaintiffs» equal protection claims assert that the Challenged Statutes violate their fundamental rights to equality of education by adversely affecting the quality of the education they are afforded by the state.»

Lawyers representing students and families from the now - defunct Lake View school district in Arkansas filed a lawsuit in federal court Oct. 25 challenging a new state school consolidation law on the grounds that it violates the district's equal - protection rights and is racially discriminatory, according to the Associated Press.

If state courts rule that the amendment requires that religious students and institutions be treated differently than secular ones, as Martinez's ruling seems to imply, it could potentially raise a federal challenge under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments as a violation of free exercise and equal protection.

Specifically, the challenged laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs failed to establish that the challenged statutes violate equal protection, primarily because they did not show that the statutes inevitably cause a certain group of students to receive an education inferior to the education received by other students.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court earlier this month, a group of teachers who do not instruct math or English - but nonetheless are being evaluated on those scores - have challenged the system on constitutional grounds of due process and equal protection.

The case, brought forward two years ago by Silicon Valley entrepreneur and education activist Dave Welsh, challenged the court to weigh teacher job protections against a student's constitutional right to equal access to a quality education.

The Judge granted the County's motion to dismiss on all claims, including a challenge under the Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause, federal and state law preemption, Contracts Clause, and vagueness.

The lawsuit challenges the ban on several grounds — specifically that it violates both the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

«We believe it is illegal and we will challenge it in court as unconstitutional... the first federal double - taxation in history, violative of states» rights and the principle of equal protection.»

After several constitutional challenges based on equal protection and Congressional power, the Graves Amendment to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2005) essentially eliminated vicarious liability for rental car companies.

Legal challenges involve aspects of state constitutional law — separation of powers, due process, equal protection and, prominently of late, the right to trial by jury.

It accidentally devolved into a sexual orientation equal protection case when an attorney for Abbott used a peremptory challenge to strike a gay man from the jury pool.

Continue Reading Federal District Court Rejects Craft Brewers» Equal Protection and Due Process Challenge of Texas» Ban on Brewer Off - Premises Retailing

the evidentiary burden placed on a criminal defendant who claims that he has been denied equal protection through the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude members of his race from the petit jury.

Even the Swain dissenters did not take issue with the majority's position that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the State from using its peremptory challenges to exclude blacks based on the assumption or belief that they would be partial to a black defendant.

By requiring trial courts to be sensitive to the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, our decision enforces the mandate of equal protection and furthers the ends of justice.

The Court's opinion cogently explains the pernicious nature of the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, and the repugnancy of such discrimination to the Equal Protection Clause.

Swain required the Court to decide, among other issues, whether a black defendant was denied equal protection by the State's exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude members of his race from the petit jury.

The dissenters emphasized that their view concerning the evidentiary burden facing a defendant who alleges an equal protection claim based on the State's use of peremptory challenges

United States v. Newman, 549 F. 2d 240 (CA2 1977), the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant.

This Court should conclude that the prosecutorial peremptory challenges exercised in this case were proper under the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause and the sixth amendment.

Conceding that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to peremptory challenges and that Swain did state that their use ultimately is subject to the strictures of equal protection, the State argues that the privilege of unfettered exercise of the challenge is of vital importance to the criminal justice system.

Accordingly, the component of the jury selection process at issue here, the State's privilege to strike individual jurors through peremptory challenges, is subject to the commands of the Equal Protection Clause.

the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely... on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant.

Just extend the full benefits of equal protection laws to gays in terms of a protected class analysis and then you prevent discrimination, ban peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation, and allow for Batson challenges when it appears that being gay was the reason for the strike.