Federal Courts. Procedure. Denial of Temporary Restraining Order Is Appealable as a Final Decision Where Delay Would Render Appeal Ineffectual; Powers. United States under Civil Rights Act May Obtain Temporary Order Restraining State Criminal Proceedings. United States v. Wood (5th Cir. 1961)

1963 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 638
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Restraining Order

scholarly journals A Simple Solution to Policing Problems: Women!

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 590-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mindy E. Bergman ◽  
Jessica M. Walker ◽  
Vanessa A. Jean
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Police Officer ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Police Departments ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Police Organizations ◽  
Female Officers ◽  
Organizational Climates

Ruggs et al. (2016) describe paths through which industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology can make a dent in the ongoing policing problems in the United States. These paths include traditional I-O areas such as improved selection models, increased training, and changed organizational climates. However, there might be one fairly straightforward way in which police organizations can quickly reduce use-of-force problems: women. Because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents selection based on sex, police departments obviously cannot hire women just because they are women. But police departments can and, we argue, should recruit more women to apply for police officer positions, create work practices and experiences that are attractive to and supportive of women (Hassell & Brandl, 2009), and make efforts to retain female officers because of the evidence that female officers use less force when policing (Bolger, 2015). Additionally, police organizations and I-O psychologists should also work together to discover why women are less likely to use force and, subsequently, determine whether these characteristics can be selected or trained for in either sex.

Texas Mexicans and the Politics of Whiteness

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariela J. Gross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Racial Identity ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Mexican Americans ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Southeastern United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
History Of ◽  
Local Courts ◽  
Construction Of Whiteness

These two fascinating articles seek to fill an important lacuna in the burgeoning literature on the legal construction of whiteness. While LatCrit theorists in the legal academy have urged civil rights scholars and race critics to transcend the “black-white paradigm” of U.S. race studies, the majority of legal histories of whiteness have focused on two sets of cases: trials in the southeastern United States in which local courts tried to draw the line between “white” and “negro”; and cases about immigration and naturalization in which Federal courts determined whether particular foreign immigrants were suitably “white” for citizenship. Likewise, although there have been several important social and cultural histories of Texas Mexicans and whiteness in the last fifteen years, they have not considered the legal realm. The time is ripe for attention to the legal history of Mexican Americans' civil rights struggles in Texas, especially as they illuminate the shifting racial identity of Mexican Americans in the Southwest.

Shall We Employ Women Guards in Male Prisons?

1987 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lois Shawver ◽  
Douglas Kurdys
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Security Risk ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Male Prisoners ◽  
Privacy Invasion

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, United States prisons have begun hiring women to work as guards in male prisons. In recent years, this policy has been challenged in the courts on two grounds: first, that women guards are a security risk, and second, that they invade prisoners' privacy. Research cited in this article questions the validity of both of these claims. Women guards appear to reduce tensions in male prisons and to be in less danger than the male guards. Three criteria are suggested for evaluating privacy invasion in particular cases, and using these criteria it appears that most prisons can avoid privacy invasion of male prisoners without excluding women from positions as guards.

Our Spirit Is Not Narrow Bigotry

2020 ◽  
pp. 103-126
Author(s):  
Linda C. McClain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Religious Leaders ◽  
The Public ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
The Law ◽  
Natural Difference

This chapter studies how arguments about bigotry, conscience, and legislating morality featured in legislative debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly the public accommodations provision (Title II). President Lyndon B. Johnson urged clergy to support the act and help the United States overcome bigotry. Religious leaders testified for and against the law. Lawmakers and witnesses supporting the law insisted that the nation’s conscience demanded that Congress pass a law to end bigotry and racial discrimination. Opponents referred to bigotry in multiple ways: they argued that segregation reflected natural difference and God’s plan, not bigotry; that people had a right to be bigoted; and that the act’s supporters were the real bigots. The chapter concludes with two Supreme Court cases upholding Title II relevant to later constitutional challenges to civil rights laws protecting LGBTQ persons: Heart of Atlanta v. United States and Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises.

Opening Up the Workplace

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Rosen ◽  
Joseph Mosnier
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Job Seekers ◽  
Disparate Impact ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employment Screening ◽  
Opening Up

This chapter describes the contributions of Julius Chambers and his partners, most particularly Robert Belton, to the LDF's national litigation campaign to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which new law outlawed racial discrimination in the workplace effective July 1965. In October 1965, Chambers filed the nation's first-ever Title VII suit, and soon after filed three additional cases which, when ultimately decided years later, substantially ended overt racial discrimination in American workplaces. These critical victories included Supreme Court triumphs in Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) and Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), and the Fourth Circuit's Robinson v. Lorillard Corp. (1971). Griggs, recognized as the era's landmark employment ruling, established the "disparate impact" standard for adjudicating employers' use of "intelligence" tests and other pre-employment screening mechanisms. Together, Griggs, Moody, and Robinson did much to define the federal courts' interpretations of Title VII in a fashion that both opened workplaces to black job seekers and offered some compensatory remedy to those who had suffered under racially discriminatory workplace schemes. By these efforts, Chambers, his partners, and the LDF would leave the American workplace forever changed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document