The Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, a 2016 landmark religious liberty case, illustrates the ongoing debate between religious non-profit organizations and the government regarding the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Although the Little Sisters, in part because of their public relations and political advantages, received a relatively favorable outcome at the Supreme Court, their true successes lie on their impact on conservative politics and on the 2016 election. The Little Sisters became a significant component of political and religious leaders’ strategy to reframe the issue.

These days, the Supreme Court of the United States represents a very important and irreplaceable role in its home land: protection of constitutionality, explanation of federal laws, as well as appellate court of last resort within the framework of American courts. Today there is no doubt about its jurisdiction, but there were doubts. In the beginning of its existence no one was sure if the Court could overcome the initial obstacles which were in the way. This diploma thesis deals with the initial existence of the Supreme Court of the United States, its role within the framework of the US federal power system, and its progressive integration as equal with the legislative branch and executive power - The United States Congress and the President, respectively. The main objective of this thesis is to introduce the federal judiciary of the United States, show its differences from the continental system, and accentuate the importance of precedents. First, I focus on the history of the United States; colonization by British citizens, the American War for Independence, The Declaration of Independence, and the formation of American statehood in the 1780s, which resulted in the acceptance of one of the longest- lasting written constitutions in the world. After the historical excurse, the thesis focuses on...

The research problem examined in my thesis is stated clearly in the title: Justice Brennan and The Bill of Rights. In my examination, I relied primarily on Brennan's opinions, and secondarily, on scholarly commentaries authored by Brennan and others. I located the cases through a combination of sources. Initially, I consulted the Harvard Law Reviews' "Supreme Court Term, (1956-1981) Term(s)," which is published annually in its November edition, and then, I turned to the writings by, and about, Brennan my findings show that Brennan's approach in these cases has evolved over the years toward a more absolutist one.

This thesis provides a comprehensive history of Supreme Court Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from 1879 until the present day. It describes how a jurisdictional approach to free exercise dominated the Court’s rulings from its first Free Exercise Clause case in 1879 until Sherbert v. Verner in 1963, and how Sherbert introduced an accommodationist precedent which was ineffectively, incompletely, and inconsistently defined by the Court. This thesis shows how proponents of accommodationism furthered a false narrative overstating the scope and consistency of Sherbert’s precedent following the Court’s repudiation of accommodationism and return to full jurisdictionalism with Employment Division v. Smith (1990). It then shows how this narrative inspired a massive bipartisan coalition in favor of codifying accommodationism, and how this coalition succeeded in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. The RFRA coalition eventually fractured, as RFRA’s implications began to conflict with principles and objectives of liberal interest groups and the Democratic Party. This thesis posits that the fracture of the RFRA coalition can be traced back directly to confusions over Sherbert’s precedent.

Le concept et la justiciabilité des droits sociaux et économiques dans le cadre nord-américain n'ont jamais fait l'objet d'une étude à part entière par la doctrine juridique française. En cause, le fait que la culture juridique nord-américaine apparaît aux yeux de la plupart des juristes comme largement imperméable à cette catégorie de droits que nous référençons sous le vocable de « droits sociaux ». Lorsque l'on s'interroge sur la manière d'appréhender leur garantie, l'évolution des droits sociaux dans le droit nord-américain est pourtant riche d'instruction, du fait du cadre culturel particulier dans lequel ils opèrent, et du fait que la doctrine nord-américaine a eu le mérite d'embrasser un large spectre théorique pour penser cette catégorie. Le cas nord-américain a impliqué une construction des droits sociaux en deux temps séparés, relatifs à deux projets sociaux différents : d'abord celui de la Nouvelle donne (New Deal) de la présidence Roosevelt dans les années 1930 ; et celui de la déségrégation raciale amorcée par la Cour suprême d'Earl Warren dans les années 1950, couplée avec la Guerre contre la pauvreté (War on Poverty) de la présidence Johnson la décennie suivante. Ces deux temps dans le traitement de la question sociale nord-américaine nous permettent de distinguer deux conceptions antagonistes des droits sociaux. La première est relative à la période du New Deal, elle est fondée sur l'émancipation individuelle du travailleur, et demeure la responsabilité du pouvoir législatif par des politiques d'assurance sociale. La seconde est relative à la période de la guerre contre la pauvreté et de déségrégation raciale dans les années 1950-1960, elle est fondée sur la réintégration des minorités écartées de la première catégorie, elle opère sur le plan de l'assistance sociale et demeure la responsabilité du juge en « réaction » aux oublis du législateur. Il ressort de cet historique des droits sociaux une dualité conceptuelle qui rend compte des limites à la possibilité de théoriser une garantie uniforme des droits sociaux aux Etats-Unis. Cette dualité permet en revanche d'analyser avec plus de précisions les débats doctrinaux essentiels sur la conception et la justiciabilité des droits sociaux. La doctrine nord-américaine a ainsi nourri deux débats doctrinaux majeurs, celui sur le caractère indéterminé des droits sociaux, impliquant leur caractère fondamentalement dynamique, un débat qui aboutit le plus souvent à condamner les théories transcendantes visant à figer leur contenu. Enfin le débat doctrinal sur la compétence réel du juge, qui interroge plus largement les rouages et les possibilités du modèle américain de Judicial Review relativement à la question sociale. Le résultat théorique de notre étude, relativement à la dualité conceptuelle prise en compte, implique la conclusion que la garantie des droits sociaux ne peut s'apprécier qu'en fonction des conjonctures politiques. Elles dépendent du projet social en cours et des jugements collectifs qui déterminent les vecteurs les justifiant, que ce soit le besoin du bénéficiaire, ou sa contrepartie à la société. Cette perspective vide de sa substance le contenu du concept de garantie, mais permet de mieux définir la réalité et les évolutions en cours au sujet de cette catégorie de droits, notamment les vecteurs décisifs à prendre en compte à leur sujet. / The concept and justiciability of social and economic rights in the specific US legal field has never been studied by the French legal doctrine, with the exception of short comparative studies. We see the American legal field as largely aversive to the recognition of the so-called “social rights”. However, when we consider social rights guarantee, American law offers weak but very original perspectives. And the American legal doctrine offers many ways to consider social rights guarantee in the field of Common law. To better appreciate social rights, we need to distinguish two different timeline in American legal history which has influenced the creation and spreading of social rights. First timeline is Franklin Roosevelt New Deal in the 30's, second timeline is Warren court judicial activism against segregation starting in the 50's, joined by Johnson War on poverty the following decade. By dealing with social and economic regulation, these two timelines offers two antagonistic conceptions of social rights. The first conception goes back to the New Deal era. It focuses on the emancipation of worker's rights, and social insurance. That conception implies the exclusive responsibility of legislative branch to make such a social legislation. The second conception goes back mainly to Warren court era and Johnson presidency. That conception implies the protection of the minorities who didn't get access to New Deal reforms because of segregation laws at that time . It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to put them back into the Welfare State. That specific two channels conception of social rights gave birth to a specific conceptual duality which prevents any possibility to conceive a whole theory of social rights guarantee in US legal doctrine. That conceptual duality is interesting tough, as it permits to better consider doctrinal debates about justiciability of social rights. US legal doctrines focused on two mains debates according to social rights. The first one is the problem of indeterminacy. It implies social rights as a history related and dynamic kind of law, condemning most theories based on moral transcendent principles of justice. The second is the problem of court capability for enforcing such kind of rights. It focuses on a broader debate about the Judicial review model, and the separation of powers between courts and legislative branch. The conceptual duality of social rights made their guarantee strongly contingent of the political process. Social rights guarantee depend on the background social project which put them into reality. That perspective made the basic idea of guarantee a non sense in the case of social rights, but stay as the best tool to better appreciate their evolution and the needs they fulfill.

In this study, I examine the extent to which students’ rights to free speech and expression were violated in response to the nationwide school walkouts that took place during the spring of 2018. Students hold the right to political speech and expression under the landmark Supreme Court Case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). However, the rights students maintain to participate in protest during school hours is somewhat unclear. Using a two-pronged case study analysis, I explore the question of student rights and potential violations in the face of protest through examining school disciplinary responses alongside disciplinary policy and disciplinary policy in the context of Tinker. Findings highlight a widespread gap in school and district-level policy specific to protest or other types of political expression and the need for such policy when protecting the rights students hold under Tinker.

In June 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a case called National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. While initially the decision seemed favorable to supporters of the bill, Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion could likely render the bill ineffective in implementation and it creates more Constitutionally confusing precedent than it resolves. Among the questions that now rise to the surface are: will Congress be able to raise the tax to a level where it will become effective? What is now mandatory for states to adopt into their Medicaid programs? Where is the line for the federal government with regards to coercion? What are the definitions of direct and indirect taxes? And, how binding is the Origination Clause of the Constitution?

Since the Civil War, historians have tried to understand why eleven southern states seceded from the Union to form a new nation, the Confederate States of America. What compelled the South to favor disunion over union? While enduring stereotypes perpetuated by the Myth of the Lost Cause cast most southerners of the antebellum era as ardent secessionists, not all southerners favored disunion. In addition, not all states were enthusiastic about the prospects of leaving one Union only to join another. Secession and disunion have helped shape the identity of the imagined South, but many Georgians opposed secession. This dissertation examines the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Moore Wayne (1790-1867), a staunch Unionist from Savannah, Georgia. Wayne remained on the U.S. Supreme Court during the American Civil War, and this study explores why he remained loyal to the Union when his home state joined the Confederacy. Examining the nature of Wayne’s Unionism opens many avenues of inquiry into the nature of Georgia’s attitudes toward union and disunion in the antebellum era. By exploring the political, economic and social dimensions of Georgia Unionism and long opposition to secession, this work will add to the growing list of studies of southern Unionists.

The ideal of reason is central to contemporary accounts of citizenship in American constitutional law. The individual capacity for reasoned choice lies closely aligned with the constitutional values of personal liberty and democratic self-government as they have evolved in Supreme Court decisions over the past century. Yet as presently conceived, the ideal of reason in constitutional law overlooks the process by which individuals actually acquire the capacity to choose their own values and commitments or to engage in reasoned thinking about collective ends. This paper argues that we cannot hope to sustain and foster a constitutional polity committed to the principles of individual liberty and democratic self-government without knowing something about how individual citizens come to possess this requisite skill of mind. A developmental perspective on reason in constitutional law provides a framework for examining the source and contours of the psychological skills that make it possible to lead an autonomous, self directed life and to participate meaningfully in the processes of democratic self-government. Developmental psychology, together with research in related fields, provides empirical support for the proposition that the psychological capacity for reasoned thinking has its roots in the early caregiving relationship. Thus, a comprehensive and integrated constitutional family law must recognize the role of early caregiving in the political socialization of children. This developmental approach offers a substantial reworking of constitutional doctrine in the areas of family privacy, parental rights, congressional power, and affirmative welfare rights. / El ideal de la razón es central a las nociones contemporáneas de ciudadanía en el derecho constitucional estadounidense. La capacidad individual de hacer elecciones razonadas es afín a los valores de libertad personal y de autogobierno democrático, tal como se han desarrollado en las decisiones de la Corte Suprema a lo largo del último siglo. Sin embargo, en su concepción actual, el ideal de la razón en el derecho constitucional estadounidense ignora el proceso mediante el cual los individuos adquieren efectivamente la capacidad de escoger sus propios valores y compromisos, o de razonar acerca de sus objetivos colectivos. Este ensayo sostiene que no podemos fomentar y mantener un cuerpo social entregado a los principios de la libertad individual y del autogobierno democrático sin entender cómo es que los ciudadanos adquieren esta habilidad mental necesaria. Una perspectiva del desarrollo acerca de la razón en el derecho constitucional nos proporciona un marco para examinar el origen y el perfil de las habilidades psicológicas que permiten llevar una vida autónoma y autodirigida así como participar significativamente en los procesos de autogobierno democrático. La psicología del desarrollo, en conjunto con la investigación en áreas relacionadas, proporciona un sustento empírico a la proposición de que la capacidad psicológica para el pensamiento razonado tiene sus raíces en la relación temprana de cuidado. Por ello, un derecho constitucional de familia integral e integrado debe reconocer el rol del cuidado infantil temprano en la socialización política de los niños. Esta perspectiva de la psicología del desarrollo ofrece un replanteo de la doctrina constitucional en lo que respecta a privacidad familiar, derechos parentales, facultades del Congreso y derechos de bienestar social afirmativos.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) caused thousands of deaths, national and global panic, and immediate action by the federal government to protect the borders of the United States of America (USA) from terrorism. In response to these attacks, the United States (U.S.) government enacted laws for law enforcement agencies to protect against terrorist activities. Law enforcement agencies are effective in combating terrorism, but their measures contain a major flaw - the improper use of race in profiling to address national security and public safety concerns. Racial profiling is an ineffective measure for preventing terrorism. There are solutions to correct this flaw through reconstructing training and implementing policies for all law enforcement agencies. The intent of this thesis is to discuss the history and the effectiveness of profiling in U.S. post-9/11 counterterrorism through theoretical research of peer-reviewed journals and articles, relevant laws, and United States Supreme Court cases to offer solutions to the problems racial profiling presents. The discussion will generate a search for new ways law enforcement agencies could conduct daily counterterrorism operations.