FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2900928561> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2900928561 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2900928561 abstract "There is a widespread perception that class receives no special protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. That perception arose forty years ago, when the Supreme Court shifted to the right, rejected the idea that the Constitution protects positive rights, and declined to recognize class as a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause. But those consequential developments have obscured an important, ongoing form of class-related constitutional protection: one that resides not in equal protection but in fundamental rights doctrine. This Article shows that a nontrivial number of fundamental rights came to be recognized as such — particularly during the Warren Court era — because they are essential not only to individual liberty but also to the equal citizenship of people without financial resources. Today, there are still doctrinal mechanisms in fundamental rights law that require courts to consider class when adjudicating the constitutionality of rights-burdening state action. To illustrate this phenomenon, this Article focuses on reproductive rights. The Court’s opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade were not framed in terms of class, but class-related concerns informed the Court’s decision to recognize birth control and abortion as fundamental rights. In the contexts of voting and criminal procedure too, the Court identified certain rights as fundamental in part because the state was denying them to financially disadvantaged people. The Court developed fundamental rights doctrines in all of these areas that limited the extent to which the state could block such people from exercising their rights. Today, these long-standing class-sensitive doctrines are under threat. An increasing number of conservative judges — including a number of Supreme Court Justices — have begun to argue that class-related concerns have no place under the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this new class-blind approach, these judges cite Burger Court precedents rejecting positive rights claims and declining to treat the poor as a protected class under equal protection. But the Burger Court never held that courts are prohibited from considering class when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, it preserved many of the class-sensitive mechanisms its predecessor had developed to protect fundamental rights. Thus far, the Court has rejected attempts to eradicate these remaining forms of class-related protection from the law. But the composition of the federal judiciary is now in flux, and it is not clear that resistance to the new class blindness will endure. What is clear is that the emergent notion that class-based considerations have no place anywhere under the Fourteenth Amendment is a product not of the Burger Court era, but of our own." @default.
• W2900928561 created "2018-11-29" @default.
• W2900928561 creator A5039630133 @default.
• W2900928561 date "2018-10-01" @default.
• W2900928561 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2900928561 title "The New Class Blindness" @default.
• W2900928561 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2900928561 type Work @default.
• W2900928561 sameAs 2900928561 @default.
• W2900928561 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2900928561 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2900928561 hasAuthorship W2900928561A5039630133 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C126806153 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C2780169623 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConcept C95691615 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C126806153 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C169437150 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C17744445 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C199539241 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C2776154427 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C2776512386 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C2778272461 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C2780169623 @default.
• W2900928561 hasConceptScore W2900928561C95691615 @default.
• W2900928561 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2900928561 hasLocation W29009285611 @default.
• W2900928561 hasOpenAccess W2900928561 @default.
• W2900928561 hasPrimaryLocation W29009285611 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W1530644466 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W2121764043 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W2261971976 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W233716482 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W2337172995 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W2397913413 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3121446480 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3123383367 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3123735324 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3124517356 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3126125417 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W319781988 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W324562210 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W2605578500 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3122382400 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3122526670 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3123198491 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3124110134 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3124756142 @default.
• W2900928561 hasRelatedWork W3125656750 @default.
• W2900928561 hasVolume "128" @default.
• W2900928561 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2900928561 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2900928561 magId "2900928561" @default.
• W2900928561 workType "article" @default.