Strange Bedfellows at Work: Neomaternalism in the Making of Sex Discrimination Law

Deborah Dinner
In contests about pregnancy discrimination during the 1970s, feminists, the business lobby, and anti-abortion activists disputed the meaning of sex equality. Existing scholarship has yet to take account of the dynamic interaction between these groups. This Article fills that void by analyzing the legal and political debates that resulted in the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”). The Article reveals how competing ideas about the family, wage…

The Arbitration Clause as Super Contract

Richard Frankel
It is widely acknowledged that the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was to place arbitration clauses on equal footing with other contracts. Nonetheless, federal and state courts have turned arbitration clauses into “super contracts” by creating special interpretive rules for arbitration clauses that do not apply to other contracts. In doing so, they have relied extensively, and incorrectly, on the Supreme Court’s determination that the FAA embodies a…

For-Profit Corporations, Free Exercise, and the HHS Mandate

Scott W. Gaylord
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, most employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures (the “HHS mandate”). Across the country, individuals, religious schools, and corporations have sued to enjoin the mandate, arguing, among other things, that it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). These cases require the federal…

The ‘Shell Bill’ Game: Avoidance and the Origination Clause

Rebecca M. Kysar
With increasing frequency, many important revenue laws, such as the Affordable Care Act and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, begin as “shell bills.” The Origination Clause of the Constitution aims to place decisions over tax policy closer to the people by requiring that bills raising revenue begin in the House of Representatives, but the Clause also allows the Senate to amend such bills. The Senate has interpreted its…

Misconstruing Graham & Miller

Cara H. Drinan
In the last three years, the Supreme Court has decreed a sea change in its juvenile Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In particular, in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama, the Court struck down a majority of the states’ juvenile sentencing laws by outlawing life without parole (“LWOP”) for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses and by mandating individualized sentencing for juveniles who commit even the most serious murders. An examination of…