In 2015 the Supreme Court made history by ruling that the constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to get married. The third edition of perhaps the most influential book on the subject explains the Court's reasoning and what the consequences of the decision have been. The book also explains why the Supreme Court declined to rule that a ban on same-sex marriage was irrational or hateful or that the ban was an indirect form of gender discrimination. Instead, the Court ruled that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marry that covers same-sex couples. The book discusses the dissent's claims that the decision will lead to constitutional protection for polygamy. It also covers the controversy over whether there should be special laws that allow religious business owners not to serve same-sex couples who are married. This book is free of jargon and is accessible to anyone interested in same-sex equality, the Supreme Court or constitutional law generally.

/pdf/same-sex-marriage-and-the-constitution-3alh1hr770.pdf

Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution

Confronting persistent and widening inequality in educational opportunity, advocates have regarded the right to education as a linchpin for reform. In the forty years since the Supreme Court relegated that right to the domain of state constitutional law, its power has surged and faded in litigation challenging state school finance systems. Like so many of the students it is meant to protect, however, the right to education has generally underachieved, in part because those wielding it have not always appreciated its distinctive forms and function. Deconstructed, the right to education held by children has been formulated doctrinally as both a claim-right, imposing affirmative duties on the state to act, and an immunity, disabling certain state action. These two strands — oft-manifested as the claim-right to educational “adequacy” and an immunity entailing “equality” of educational opportunity — once considered irreconcilable are actually interlocked by the right’s core, historical function to protect children’s liberty and equality interests. And yet the right to education is ill-equipped to fulfill its protection function. Education clauses in state constitutions do not fix the standards for mutually enforcing equality and adequacy. This encumbers already-reluctant courts in addressing educational disparities and emboldens legislative resistance when they do. Appreciating that the right to education has a protection function entailing equality and liberty interests nevertheless suggests that it can be adjudicated in a way that unifies the demands and guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection. That union holds the potential to ameliorate the enforcement standards thereby reconstituting the right to education as a mainstay of reform.

Reconstituting the Right to Education

A major characteristic of the social and spatial morphology of urban areas in advanced capitalist societies is the residential segregation of different socio economic, life style, and ethnic groups.1 The basic rationale for this segrega tion is common to most societies, as is its production via the operation of housing markets. In addition, however, each country has its own particular characteristics which accentuate the general processes. One such characteristic in the United States is the nature of the local government system in most States.

Local Government, Suburban Segregation and Litigation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas

/pdf/the-section-5-power-after-tennessee-v-lane-4j64s8cz4i.pdf

The Section 5 Power after Tennessee v. Lane

Meritocracy's convert: justice white and affirmative action

/pdf/untangling-the-strands-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-4se7lzpf81.pdf

Untangling the Strands of the Fourteenth Amendment.

/pdf/intergenerationalism-and-constitutional-law-56lf0otr8y.pdf

Ira C. Lupu

Papers

Untangling the Strands of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Intergenerationalism and Constitutional Law