Print Archive
Imagine that you’re interviewing for your dream job, only to be asked by the hiring committee whether you’re pregnant. Or HIV-positive. Or Muslim. Does the First Amendment protect your interviewers’ inquiries from government regulation? This Article explores that question.
For over a hundred years, the U.S. Supreme Court—and an array of state supreme courts—consistently rejected arguments that businesses open to the public have a constitutional right to provide less than the full and equal services required by antidiscrimination laws. The Supreme Court made clear that public accommodations law “does not, on its face, target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content.”
Tourism represents an important contributor to state and local economies. Accordingly, some U.S. cities have sought to regulate operations of the industry, including the activities of official tour guides.
“Free” speech seems like a misnomer when looking at the price public universities have to pay to protect students’ First Amendment rights. Accommodating controversial speakers on campus requires universities to balance budget constraints with free speech.
After many years of comparative quiet, the United States is experiencing a growth in libel suits brought by both public officials and private figures.
Filing deadlines, and the varying ramifications for failing to satisfy them, have been a longstanding fixture of the American litigation landscape. And as if the economic downturn was not already felt sharply enough, the pandemic’s arrival painfully coincided with the peak of the United States tax season.
This Comment analyzes the equal protection issues raised by the Dual SSN Requirement and argues that it violates the equal protection rights of citizen children and spouses.
School closures in the wake of COVID-19 have caused major disruptions in the lives of our nation’s students. Following the widespread closures of schools in March of 2020, concerns for students have ranged widely, from social and emotional development, to physical and nutritional wellbeing, to academic progress and achievement.
The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare inherent tensions between the protection of intellectual property (IP) and the health of individuals touched by life-threatening medical conditions. Instead of looking for solutions that would entail legislative action, a stretch of emergency powers, or vague private commitments, we suggest that the law already provides a mechanism for addressing this tension in the form of the age-old common tort law doctrine of necessity.
In the spring of 2020, when the editors of The University of Chicago Legal Forum chose “Law for the Next Pandemic” as the theme for their upcoming fall symposium, the title seemed rather pessimistic. Really, we’re going to have to do all of this again?
Beginning in the 1980s, leading figures in the law of public health began to argue that protecting individual and human rights would promote public health, not interfere with it. Today, however, threats to this new synthesis view abound, and for good reason.
This Article explores what measures tribal governments can take to enforce regulations and policies designed to protect their own citizens and others within their territories from COVID-19.