Last week, the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta issued an injunction on two provisions of Alabama’s recent immigration law (known as HB 56), which the Alabama legislature passed in June. The Eleventh Circuit temporarily suspended two sections of HB 56, including the section making it a criminal misdemeanor for failing to [...]
U.S. jurisprudence has dealt with constitutional rights since the enactment of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, it was explicitly decided by the framers of the Australian Constitution to not include a similar Bill of Rights, although the American notions of judicial review, separation of powers, and federalism were incorporated. Accordingly, throughout Australian history courts have rarely acted to protect civil rights on the basis of constitutional interpretation. This method of rights protection has been largely inadequate to protect Indigenous Australians from breaches of their civil rights, particularly in regards to equal protection and racial discrimination.
By Mary L. Bonauto and Gary D. Buseck Contrary to much of the commentary about the President’s decision not to defend DOMA in court, the issue of the standard of review for sexual orientation classifications is still a live claim in the First Circuit in the upcoming appeal of the [...]
The Editorial Board of the New York Times today encourages the Obama Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. The law, they say, is “blatant discrimination” that should be “presumed to be unconstitutional.” With this, I agree. DOMA, signed into law by Bill Clinton, [...]
Copyright © 2013 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. All Rights Reserved.
