skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 163692 Find in a Library
Title: Supreme Court Review
Editor(s): D J Hutchinson; D A Strauss; G R Stone
Date Published: 1996
Page Count: 462
Sponsoring Agency: University of Chicago Press
Chicago, IL 60637
Publication Number: ISBN 0-226-36312-0
Sale Source: University of Chicago Press
1427 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
United States of America
Type: Survey
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: These nine papers examine recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action, race-based boundaries for congressional districts, the hearsay rule, federalism, and other issues.
Abstract: An analysis of decisions regarding affirmative action concludes that although the decisions appear to present several anomalies, they make sense if understood as a response to a widespread problem in democratic politics rather than to the kinds of concerns that led to prohibitions of discrimination against minorities. The analysis of one of the principles set forth in the decision in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority concludes that continued adherence to this principle of construing a statute so as to avoid having to make a constitutional decision is likely to be counterproductive. An analysis of the decision in Gustafson v. Alloyd concludes that this decision regarding securities law had major flaws and may indicate more and greater changes to come. The discussion of three 1993 decisions are analyzed to support the conclusion that the Court's nondiscrimination principle in interpreting the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not serve any of the commonly stated objectives of economic efficiency, representation reinforcement, and national unity. Footnotes
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Legal doctrines
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.