scholarly journals Criminal Prosecutions Affecting Federally Guaranteed Civil Rights: Federal Removal and Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction to abort State Court Trial

1965 ◽  
Vol 113 (6) ◽  
pp. 793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony G. Amsterdam
Author(s):  
David J. Armor

Despite nearly four decades of controversy and debate over school segregation, the desegregation dilemma is still largely unresolved. The “busing” problem has received less national attention in recent years, and there are no riots, bus burnings, and school boycotts, as witnessed in earlier decades. Yet current events reveal the depth of a dilemma that has divided educators, parents, jurists, social scientists, and many other groups since the beginning of the civil rights movement. Indicators of the current desegregation dilemma are numerous. Hundreds of school districts throughout the country still impose busing for desegregation purposes, many under court orders that are now more than twenty years old. Although the types of desegregation plans have evolved to some extent, with increased emphasis on school choice, many plans still compel children to attend schools that their parents would not choose, solely for the purpose of racial “balance.” Further, after a period of quiescence, school desegregation was again the subject of several major Supreme Court decisions in 1991 and 1992. The decisions affected the length of time and the conditions under which a school district has to maintain a court-ordered busing plan. Although these decisions dispelled a common misconception that school systems have to maintain desegregation plans “in perpetuity,” it is still unclear how many school districts can or will end their busing plans. Finally, new desegregation litigation and controversies continue to surface. In 1989 a lawsuit was initiated in a Connecticut state court by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to compel desegregation between the city of Hartford and its suburban districts. A similar city suburbs desegregation strategy failed in the federal courts, but the Hartford lawsuit seeks to build on the success of school equal-finance cases under state constitutions. In 1991 the school board of La Crosse, Wisconsin, adopted a busing plan to equalize economic (rather than race) differences among schools. Reminiscent of the busing controversies of the 1970s, all board members who supported the busing plan were voted out of office in a regular and a recall election, reflecting the widespread community opposition to busing for the purpose of achieving socioeconomic balance in schools.


Author(s):  
Anne Anlin Cheng

Who constitute “natural persons”? How do we move from a biological person to a legal standing? And what does a superficial, minor, and feminized category like the ornament have to do with these large questions? This chapter introduces a case that is little known but arguably one of the most significant habeas corpus cases in the nineteenth century in order to track the surprisingly critical role that racialized and feminized objects played in forming juridical ideas of natural and unnatural persons, legal and illegal subjects, citizenship and criminality. What this case reveals about how a body comes to be legally discernible holds profound implications and challenges for how we conceptualize citizenship and civil rights today.


1953 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 509 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. John Rogge ◽  
Murray A. Gordon

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. O'Brien

Federal habeas corpus challenges to state criminal convictions grew significantly between 1948 and 1996 when traditional de novo review was coupled with an expanding list of federal constitutional protections the Supreme Court made applicable to the states. The landscape changed dramatically in 1996 when Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Old and new procedural barriers to habeas review were codified. Merits review of state court decisions became highly deferential. In a series of recent decisions discussed in this article, most notably Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011), the Court strongly expressed its frustration with the failure of lower courts to heed Congress' mandate. Federal courthouse doors are now closed to all but the rare case where there “is no possibility for fair-minded disagreement” the state court acted unreasonably (not just erroneously) in deciding the merits. Review becomes “doubly deferential” when the claim is one where deference is already owed in state court; most notably, challenges to the effectiveness of counsel and to the sufficiency of the evidence. Deference is owed even when the state court issues a summary merits decision without opinion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document