No State Shall Abridge

Curtis, Michael Kent

doi:10.1215/9780822397403

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Slaughter‐House Cases (83 U.S. 38 [1873]) the Supreme Court embraced a state‐centered federalism, 19 rejecting the Republican effort to make national citizenship primary and robust (Foner 1988:258). Indeed, a compelling case has been made that the Court derailed the Republican effort to apply the Bill of Rights to the states (Curtis 1986; Amar 1998). The damage was considerable, especially for white Republicans in the South.…”

Section: An Historical Institutional Analysis Of State Action Doctrinementioning

confidence: 99%

A Judicial Abandonment of Blacks? Rethinking the “State Action” Cases of the Waite Court

Brandwein

2007

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reconsiders the conventional wisdom that the Supreme Court definitively abandoned the freedmen to their former masters through the “state action” decisions of the 1870s and 1880s. Arguing that anachronisms distort our understanding of this critical period, I offer an historical institutional analysis of state action doctrine by recovering the legal categories, assumptions, and distinctions that constituted judicial discourse about the state action rule. Showing that federal power to protect blacks was more intact than scholars realize, I also add a perspective from the sociology of knowledge. By examining a series of modern developments that erased the contexts of the state action decisions, I show how institutional practices gave rise to the anachronisms that this article seeks to correct.

show abstract

Section: An Historical Institutional Analysis Of State Action Doctrinementioning

confidence: 99%

A Judicial Abandonment of Blacks? Rethinking the “State Action” Cases of the Waite Court

Brandwein

2007

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It signaled that redress of civil rights violations would likely fall to the state courts (Curtis 1986;Kluger 1977), and these courts had already demonstrated their unwillingness to convict in such cases.…”

Section: Civil Rights Congress a N D The Federal Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was not meant to expand federal powers over the states. Though Americans had distinct rights as citizens of both the federal and state governments, the privileges and immunities of federal citizenship were severely limited to situations such as protection on the high seas (Curtis 1986). Other rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment were under the domain of state governments.…”

Section: Civil Rights Congress a N D The Federal Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment-the centerpiece of congressional Reconstruction-boded ill for the civil rights movement in the South. It signaled that redress of civil rights violations would likely fall to the state courts (Curtis 1986;Kluger 1977), and these courts had already demonstrated their unwillingness to convict in such cases.…”

Section: Civil Rights Congress a N D The Federal Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Repression, the Judicial System, and Political Opportunities for Civil Rights Advocacy During Reconstruction

Barnes

Connolly

1999

The Sociological Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary research on the modern civil rights movement stresses the importance of a triad pattern of civil rights protest, white violence, and federal intervention. We explore the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in constraining federal intervention in response to white supremacist violence during Reconstruction. We conclude that Supreme Court decisions played an important role in defeating the Reconstruction‐era civil rights movement by minimizing the likely benefits to be gained from civil rights advocacy. Future scholarship should further examine the impact of federal court decisions on the political opportunity structure facing social movements.

show abstract

The Era of Economic Due Process—Social Darwinism (Property, Monopoly, Corporatism)

Skouras

2024

Constitutionalism and Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No State Shall Abridge

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

A Judicial Abandonment of Blacks? Rethinking the “State Action” Cases of the Waite Court

A Judicial Abandonment of Blacks? Rethinking the “State Action” Cases of the Waite Court

Repression, the Judicial System, and Political Opportunities for Civil Rights Advocacy During Reconstruction

The Era of Economic Due Process—Social Darwinism (Property, Monopoly, Corporatism)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About