Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T12:13:49.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

Edited by
Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
Affiliation:
University of California, Hastings College of Law
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , pp. 237 - 310
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kay, Herma Hill, Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 1933–, 1 Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States337–42
Kay, Herma Hill, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law, 104 Colum. L. Rev.1, 7–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Metzger, Gillian & Gluck, Abbe, A Conversation with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 25 Colum. J. Gender & L.6, 7 (2013)Google Scholar
Gunther, Gerald, Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Personal, Very Fond Tribute, 20 U. Haw. L. Rev.583, 583 (1988)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Judgments in Search of Full Faith and Credit: The Last-in-Time Rule for Conflicting Judgments, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 798 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Frank T. & Petersen, Elisabeth S., Sex Discrimination in Law School Placement, 18 Wayne L. Rev.639, 652–53 (1972)Google Scholar
Meyer, Carol H., The First Activist Feminist I Ever Met, 9 Affilia85, 85 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Herma Hill, Claiming a Space in the Law School Curriculum: A Casebook on Sex-Based Discrimination, 25 Colum. J.L. & Gender54, 54–58 (2013)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, The Need for the Equal Rights Amendment, 59 A.B.A. J.1013 (1973)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Let’s Have ERA as a Signal, 63 A.B.A. J.70, 70 (1977)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, The Equal Rights Amendment Is the Way, 1 Harv. Women’s L.J.19, 20 (1978)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment: A Question of Time, 57 Tex. L. Rev.919, 936 (1979)Google Scholar
Weintraub, Russell J., A Map Out of the Personal Jurisdiction Labyrinth, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev.531, 555 (1995)Google Scholar
Kay, Herma Hill, Chief Justice Traynor and Choice of Law Theory, 35 Hastings L.J.747 (1984)Google Scholar
Cowan, Ruth B., Women’s Rights through Litigation: An Examination of the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project, 1971–1976, 8 Colum. Hum. Rights L. Rev.380 (1976)Google Scholar
French, Amy Holman, Mixing It Up: Michigan Barmaids Fight for Civil Rights, 40 Mich. Hist. Rev.1 (2014)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader & Flagg, Barbara, Some Reflections on the Feminist Legal Thought of the 1970s, 1989 U. Chi. Legal F.9
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Women as Full Members of the Club: An Evolving American Ideal, 6 Human Rts.2 (1977)Google Scholar
Turner, William B., The Gay Rights State: Wisconsin’s Pioneering Legislation to Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, 22 Wis. Women’s L.J.91 (2007)Google Scholar
Kerber, Linda K., Why Diamonds Really Are a Girl’s Best Friend, 153 Proceedings Am. Phil. Soc’y56 (Mar. 2009)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., Constitutional Culture, Social Movement Conflict and Constitutional Change: The Case of the De Facto ERA, 94 Calif. L. Rev.1323, 1385–86 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Neil S., Equal Citizenship Stature: Justice Ginsburg’s Constitutional Vision, 43 New Eng. L. Rev.771 (2010)Google Scholar
Markowitz, Deborah L., In Pursuit of Equality: One Woman’s Work to Change the Law, 11 Women’s Rts. L. Rep.73 (1989)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Remarks for the Celebration of 75 Years of Women’s Enrollment at Columbia Law School, 102 Colum. L. Rev.1441, 1447 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev.1185, 1200–02 (1992)Google Scholar
Goodman, Janice, Schoenbrod, Rhonda Copelon & Stearns, Nancy, Doe and Roe, Where Do We Go from Here?, 1 Women’s Rts. L. Rep.20, 35 (1974)Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen M., Groups and the Equal Protection Clause, 5 Phil. & Pub. Aff.107, 151 (1976)Google Scholar
Mutua, Athena D., The Rise, Development and Future Directions of Critical Race Theory and Related Scholarship, 84 Denv. U. L. Rev.329, 336 (2006)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown, 117 Harv. L. Rev.1470, 1472–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. & Siegel, Reva B., The American Civil Rights Tradition: Anticlassification or Antisubordination?, 58 U. Miami L. Rev.9, 10 (2003Google Scholar
Hasday, Jill Elaine, The Principle and Practice of Women’s “Full Citizenship”: A Case Study of Sex-Segregated Public Education, 101 Mich. L. Rev.755, 769–79 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Charles L. Jr., The Lawfulness of the Segregation Decisions, 69 Yale L.J.421 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., Equality and Choice: Sex Equality Perspectives on Reproductive Rights in the Work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 25 Colum. J. Gender & L.63 (2013)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., Sex Equality Arguments for Reproductive Rights: Their Critical Basis and Evolving Constitutional Expression, 56 Emory L.J.815 (2007)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., Dignity and the Politics of Protection: Abortion Restrictions under Casey/Carhart, 117 Yale L.J.1694, 1738–45, 1763–66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, David, Strategies of Difference: Litigating for Women’s Rights in a Man’s World, 2 L. & Inequality33, 55 (1984)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader & Flagg, Barbara, Some Reflections on the Feminist Legal Thought of the 1970s, 1989 U. Chi. Legal F.9Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., “The Rule of Love”: Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy, 105 Yale L.J.2117, 2188–95 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Cary, The Anti-Stereotyping Principle in Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev.1, 3–4 (2010)Google Scholar
Schmidt, Christopher W., Brown and the Colorblind Constitution, 94 Cornell L. Rev.203, 231–37 (2008)Google Scholar
Siegel, Neil S., Race-Conscious Student Assignment Plans: Balkanization, Integration, and Individualized Consideration, 56 Duke L.J.781, 830–33, 841–43 (2006)Google Scholar
Post, Robert C. & Siegel, Reva B., Legislative Constitutionalism and Section Five Power: Policentric Interpretation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 112 Yale L.J.1943, 2042 n.309 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby”: Rehnquist’s New Approach to Pregnancy Discrimination in Hibbs, 58 Stan. L. Rev.1871, 1897–98 (2006)Google Scholar
Siegel, Neil S. & Siegel, Reva B., Pregnancy and Sex Role Stereotyping, from Struck to Carhart, 70 Ohio St. L.J.1095 (2009)Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda, Introduction: Learning to Listen to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, N.Y. City L. Rev.213, 218–19 (2004)Google Scholar
Merritt, Deborah Jones & Lieberman, David M., Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Jurisprudence of Opportunity and Equality, 104 Colum. L. Rev.39, 47 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., Equality’s Frontiers: How Congress’s Section 5 Power Can Secure Transformative Equality (As Justice Ginsburg Illustrates in Coleman), 122 Yale L.J. Online267 (2013)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Sex Equality and the Constitution, 52 Tul. L. Rev.451 (1978)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N.C. L. Rev.375 (1985)Google ScholarPubMed
Siegel, Neil S. & Siegel, Reva B., Equality Arguments for Abortion Rights, 60 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse160 (2013)Google Scholar
Siegel, Neil S., The Virtue of Judicial Statesmanship, 86 Tex. L. Rev.959, 1014–30 (2008)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva, Reasoning from the Body: A Historical Perspective on Abortion Regulation and Questions of Equal Protection, 44 Stan. L. Rev.261 (1992)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Law, Sylvia, Rethinking Sex and the Constitution, 132 U. Pa. L. Rev.955, 1002–28 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Peter J., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Judge’s Perspective, 70 Ohio St. L.J.825, 825 (2009)Google Scholar
Confusione, Michael James, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Thurgood Marshall: A Misleading Comparison, 26 Rutgers L.J.887 (1995)Google Scholar
Siegel, Neil S. & Reva BSiegel, ., Struck by Stereotype: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Pregnancy Discrimination as Sex Discrimination, 59 Duke L.J.771 (2010)Google Scholar
Siegel, Neil S., Equal Citizenship Stature: Justice Ginsburg’s Constitutional Vision, 43 New Eng. L. Rev.799 (2009)Google Scholar
Murray, Pauli & Eastwood, Mary O., Crow and the Law: Sex Discrimination and Title VII, 34 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.232 (1965–1966)Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A., Pornography as Defamation and Discrimination, 71 B.U. L. Rev.793 (1991)Google Scholar
Williams, Susan H. & Williams, David C., Sense and Sensibility: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Mentoring Style as a Blend of Rigor and Compassion, 1998 U. Hawai’i L. Rev.589Google Scholar
Franklin, Cary, The Anti-Stereotyping Principle in Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev.83, 97–105 (2010)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Some Thoughts on the 1980’s Debate over Special versus Equal Treatment of Women, 4 L. & Inequality143, 146 (1986)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Gender and the Constitution, 44 U. Cin. L. Rev.1, 1 (1975)Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael J., Social Reform Litigation and Its Challenges: An Essay in Honor of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 32 Harv. J.L. & Gender251, 266 (2009)Google Scholar
Dukart, Hennifer Yatkis, Geduldig Reborn: Hibbs as a Success(?) of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Sex-Discrimination Strategy, 93 Calif. L. Rev.541, 544–55 (2005)Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda, Learning to Listen to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 7 N.Y. City L. Rev.213, 218 (2004)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader & Flagg, Barbara, Some Reflections on the Feminist Legal Thought of the 1970s, 1989 U. Chi. Legal F.9Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby”: Rehnquist’s New Approach to Pregnancy Discrimination in Hibbs, 58 Stan. L. Rev.1871 (2006)Google Scholar
Silbaugh, Katharine B., Is the Work-Family Conflict Pathological or Normal under the FMLA?: The Potential of the FMLA to Cover Ordinary Work-Family Conflicts, 15 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y193, 208 (2004)Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H. & Steffen, Valerie, Gender Stereotypes Stem from the Distribution of Women and Men into Social Roles, 46 J. Personality & Soc. Psych.735–54 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandello, Joseph et al., Precarious Manhood, 95 J. Personality & Soc. Psych.1325, 1326 (2008)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandello, Joseph A. et al., When Equal Isn’t Really Equal: The Masculine Dilemma of Seeking Work Flexibility, 69 J. Soc. Issues303, 311 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A. & Mescher, Kris, Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave: Is Flexibility Stigma a Femininity Stigma?, 69 J. Soc. Issues322, 336 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berdahl, Jennifer L. & Moon, Sue H., Workplace Mistreatment of Middle Class Workers Based on Sex, Parenthood, and Caregiving, 69 J. Soc. Issues341, 354 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terjen, Katherine Griffith, Close-up on Segregation Academies, New South (Fall 1972), at 50Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Martin, Sex Discrimination and the IRS: Public Policy and the Charitable Deduction, 10 Tax Notes27 (Jan. 14, 1980)Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen M., Groups and the Equal Protection Clause, 5 Phil. & Pub. Aff.107, 108 (1976)Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., The Supreme Court, 1995 Term – Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided, 110 Harv. L. Rev.4, 75 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Cary, The Anti-Stereotyping Principle in Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev.83, 143–46 (2010)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby: Rehnquist’s New Approach to Pregnancy Discrimination in Hibbs, 58 Stan. L. Rev.1871, 1873 (2006)Google Scholar
Bagenstos, Samuel R., Justice Ginsburg and the Judicial Role in Expanding “We the People”: The Disability Rights Cases, 104 Colum. L. Rev.49, 56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader & Flagg, Barbara, Some Reflections on the Feminist Legal Thought of the 1970s, 1989 U. Chi. Legal F.9Google Scholar
Kerber, Linda K., Writing Our Own Rare Books, 14 Yale J.L. & Feminism429, 430–31 (2002)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., The Supreme Court, 2012 Term – Foreword: Equality Divided, 127 Harv. L. Rev.1, 14 (2013)Google Scholar
Sullivan, Kathleen M., Constitutionalizing Women’s Equality, 90 Calif. L. Rev.735, 739 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobogin, Christopher, Justice Ginsburg’s Gradualism in Criminal Procedure, 70 Ohio St. L.J.867, 870 (2009)Google Scholar
Siegel, Neil S., “Equal Citizenship Stature”: Justice Ginsburg’s Constitutional Vision, 43 New. Eng. L. Rev.799, 825 (2009)Google Scholar
Valentine, Sarah E., Ruth Bader Ginsburg: An Annotated Bibliography, 7 N.Y. City L. Rev.391 (2004)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause, 9 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev41 (1986)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev.1185, 1198 (1992)Google Scholar
Karlan, Pamela S., Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 70 Ohio St. L.J.1085, 1086 (2009)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N.C. L. Rev.375, 376 (1985)Google ScholarPubMed
Epstein, Lee, et al. Circuit Effects: How the Norm of Federal Judicial Experience Biases the U.S. Supreme Court, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev.833, 853–64 (2009)Google Scholar
Shapiro, David L., Justice Ginsburg’s First Decade: Some Thoughts about Her Contributions in the Fields of Procedure and Jurisdiction, 104 Colum. L. Rev.21, 21–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Wendy W., Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Equal Protection Clause: 1970–80, 25 Colum. J. Gender & L.41, 41 (2013)Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol S., Raising the Bar: Maples v. Thomas and the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, 127 Harv. L. Rev.468 (2013)Google Scholar
Bandes, Susan A., The Lone Miscreant, The Self-Training Prosecutor, and Other Fictions: A Comment on Connick v. Thompson, 80 Fordham L. Rev.715, 721 (2011)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, The Role of Dissenting Opinions, 95 Minn. L. Rev.1, 3 (2010)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Remarks on Writing Separately, 65 Wash. L. Rev.133, 142–44 (1990)Google Scholar
Gertner, Nancy, Dissenting in General: Herring v. United States in Particular, 127 Harv. L. Rev.433, 433 (2013)Google Scholar
Aviram, Hadar, Legally Blind: Hyperadversarialism, Brady Violations, and the Prosecutorial Organizational Culture, 87 St. John’s L. Rev.1 (2013)Google Scholar
Brown, Darryl K., Defense Counsel, Trial Judges, and Evidence Production Protocols, 45 Tex. Tech. L. Rev.133 (2012)Google Scholar
Green, Bruce A., Federal Criminal Discovery Reform: A Legislative Approach, 64 Mercer L. Rev.639 (2013)Google Scholar
Moore, Janet, Democracy and Criminal Discovery Reform After Connick and Garcetti, 77 Brook. L. Rev.1329 (2012)Google Scholar
Yaroshesky, Ellen, New Orleans Prosecutorial Disclosure in Practice after Connick v. Thompson, 25Geo. J. Legal Ethics913 (2012)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., The Right’s Reasons: Constitutional Conflict and the Spread of Women-Protective Antiabortion Argument, 57 Duke L.J.1641 (2008)Google Scholar
Jackson, Vicki C., Lee v. Kemna: Federal Habeas Corpus and State Procedure, 127 Harv. L. Rev.445, 448–49 (2013)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Remarks of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at CUNY School of Law, 7 N.Y. City L. Rev.221, 238 (2004)Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., Sex Equality Arguments for Reproductive Rights: Their Critical Basis and Evolving Constitutional Expression, 56 Emory L.J.815, 823 (2007)Google Scholar
Merritt, Deborah Jones & Lieberman, David M., Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Jurisprudence of Opportunity and Equality, 104 Colum. L. Rev.39, 45 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev.1185, 1198 (1992)Google Scholar
Williams, Wendy W., Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Equal Protection Clause, 25 Colum. J. Gender & L.41, 41 (2013)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Gender and the Constitution, 44 U. Cin. L. Rev.1 (1975)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment: A Question of Time, 57 Tex. L. Rev.919, 919 (1979)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, In Memoriam: Albert M. Sacks, 105 Harv. L. Rev.16, 17 (1991)Google Scholar
Monaghan, Henry Paul, Doing Originalism, 104 Colum. L. Rev.32, 35 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, John F., Justice Ginsburg and the New Legal Process, 127 Harv. L. Rev.455, 459 (2013)Google Scholar
Czarmezki, Jason J., Ford, William K. & Ringhand, Lori A., An Empirical Examination of the Confirmation Hearings of the Justices of the Rehnquist Court, 24 Const. Commentary127, 140 tbl.B (2007)Google Scholar
Slobogin, Christopher, Justice Ginsburg’s Gradualism in Criminal Procedure, 70 Ohio St. L.J.865, 879 (2009)Google Scholar
Sklansky, David A., Cocaine, Race, and Equal Protection, 47 Stan. L. Rev.1283, 1284 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. & Pickerill, J. Mitchell, The Politics of Criminal Justice: How the New Rights Shaped the Rehnquist Court’s Criminal Justice Jurisprudence, 94 Geo. L.J.1385 (2005)Google Scholar
Stuntz, William J., The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law, 100 Mich. L. Rev.505, 510 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart, Crisis, 67 J. Hist. Ideas357 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Christopher, Northward Migration and the Rise of Racial Disparity in American Incarceration, 1880–1950, 118 Am. J. Soc.281, 282–83 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waquant, Loïc, From Slavery to Mass Incarceration, 13 New Left Rev.41, 41 (2002)Google Scholar
Natapoff, Alexandra, Misdemeanors, 85 S. Cal. L. Rev.1313, 1316 (2012)Google Scholar
Primus, Eve Brensike, A Structural Vision of Habeas Corpus, 98 Calif. L. Rev.1, 16–23 (2010)Google Scholar
George, Ronald M., Challenges Facing an Independent Judiciary, 80 N.Y.U. L. Rev.1345, 1353 (2005)Google Scholar
Traum, Anne R., Mass Incarceration at Sentencing, 64Hastings L.J.423, 446–47 (2013)Google Scholar
Gottschalk, Marie, The Past, Present, and Future of Mass Incarceration in the United States, 10 Criminology & Pub. Pol.483, 489 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Robert et al., Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, 277 Science918 (1997)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unnever, James D. & Cullen, Francis T., The Social Sources of Americans’ Punitiveness: A Test of Three Competing Models, 48 Criminology99, 119 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ura, Joshua Daniel, Backlash and Legitimation: Macro Political Responses to Supreme Court Decisions, 58 Am. Pol. Sci. J.110, 120 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckett, Katherine & Western, Bruce, Governing Social Marginality, 3 Punishment & Soc.43, 45 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huq, Aziz Z., Standing for the Structural Constitution, 99 Va. L. Rev.1435 (2013)Google Scholar
Carstens, Anne-Marie C., Lurking in the Shadows of Judicial Process: Special Masters in the Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction Cases, 86 Minn. L. Rev.625 (2002)Google Scholar
Shelfer, Lochlan F., Special Juries in the Supreme Court, 123 Yale L.J.208 (2013)Google Scholar
Laycock, Douglas, Federal Interference with State Prosecutions: The Need for Prospective Relief, 1977 Sup. Ct. Rev.193Google Scholar
Luna, Erik, The Overcriminalization Phenomenon, 54 Am. U. L. Rev.703 (2005)Google Scholar
Stuntz, William J., The Uneasy Relationship between Criminal Procedure and Criminal Justice, 107 Yale L.J.1, 6 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, Henry Paul, Supreme Court Review of State-Court Determinations of State Law in Constitutional Cases, 103 Colum. L. Rev.1919 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Susan R. & Grobey, Ingrid B., Debunking Claims of Over-Federalization of Criminal Law, 62 Emory L.J.1, 7 (2012)Google Scholar
Smith, Stephen F., Proportionality and Federalization, 91 Va. L. Rev.879, 883 (2005)Google Scholar
Schulhofer, Stephen J., Criminal Justice, Local Democracy, and Constitutional Rights, 111 Mich. L. Rev.1045 (2013)Google Scholar
Jeffries, John C., Lenity, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes, 71 Va. L. Rev.189, 198–200 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheyn, Elizabeth R., Criminalizing the Denial of Honest Services after Skilling, 2011 Wisc. L. Rev.27Google Scholar
Stuntz, William J., The Political Constitution of Criminal Justice, 119 Harv. L. Rev.780, 783 (2006)Google Scholar
Hasen, Richard L., End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress, 86 S. Cal. L. Rev.205 (2013)Google Scholar
Friendly, Henry J., The Bill of Rights as a Code of Criminal Procedure, 53 Calif. L. Rev.929, 951–53 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed, Fourth Amendment First Principles, 107 Harv. L. Rev.757 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, Orin S., Fourth Amendment Remedies and Development of the Law: A Comment on Camreta v. Greene and Davis v. United States, 2011 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev.237, 254 (2011)Google Scholar
Bernstein, Anya, The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watchlists, 61 Buff. L. Rev.461 (2013)Google Scholar
Scott, Ryan W., Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity after Booker: A First Look, 63 Stan. L. Rev.1 (2010)Google Scholar
Huq, Aziz Z., Habeas and the Roberts Court, 81 U. Chi. L. Rev. – (forthcoming)
Lieb, Doug, Can Section 1983 Help Prevent the Execution of Mentally Retarded Prisoners, 121 Yale L.J.1571 (2012)Google Scholar
Manning, John F., The Eleventh Amendment and the Reading of Precise Constitutional Texts, 113 Yale L.J.1663 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Amy Coney, The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 Colum. L. Rev.324 (2006)Google Scholar
Keck, Thomas, Party, Policy, or Duty, Why Does the Supreme Court Invalidate Federal Statutes, 101 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.321, 323 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Marin, Judging the Flood of Litigation, 80 U. Chi. L. Rev.1007, 1037–59 (2012)Google Scholar
Zupac, Wendy Zorana, Mere Negligence or Abandonment? Evaluating Claims of Attorney Misconduct after Maples v. Thomas, 122 Yale L.J.1328, 1357–58 (2013)Google Scholar
Stith, Kate, The Arc of the Pendulum: Judges, Prosecutors, and the Exercise of Discretion, 117 Yale L.J.1420, 1425 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkow, Rachel E., Sentencing Guidelines at the Crossroads of Politics and Experience, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev.1599, 1624 (2012)Google Scholar
Bibas, Stephanos & Klein, Susan, The Sixth Amendment and Criminal Sentencing, 30 Cardozo L. Rev.775, 789 (2008)Google Scholar
Shapiro, Susan P., Collaring the Crime, not the Criminal: Reconsidering the Concept of White Collar Crime, 55 Am. Soc. Rev.346 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuntz, William J., The Virtues and Vices of the Exclusionary Rule, 20 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y443, 443–44 (1997)Google Scholar
Levinson, Daryl J., Making Government Pay: Markets, Politics, and the Allocation of Constitutional Costs, 67 U. Chi. L. Rev.345, 370–71 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodson, Scott, Justice Souter and the Civil Rules, 88 Wash. U. L. Rev.289, 290–91 (2010)Google Scholar
Wasserman, Howard M., The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival, 31 Rev. Litig.313, 314–17 (2012)Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. & Farhang, Sean, Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach, 162 U. Pa. L. Rev. (forthcoming)
Ray, Laura Krugman, Justice Ginsburg and the Middle Way, 68 Brook. L. Rev.629, 639 (2003)Google Scholar
Kaplan, Benjamin, Civil Procedure in Sweden, 79 Harv. L. Rev.629, 460–61 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, In Celebration of Jack Friedenthal, 78 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.1 (2009)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, In Memoriam: Benjamin Kaplan, 124 Harv. L. Rev.1349 (2011)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Tribute to Arthur Miller, 67 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L.1 (2011)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, The Work of Professor Allan Delker Vestal, 70 Iowa L. Rev.13 (1984)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, In Memory of Herbert Wechsler, 100 Colum. L. Rev.1359 (2000)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Charlie’s Letters, 79 Tex. L. Rev.3 (2000)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, In Celebration of Charles Alan Wright, 76 Tex. L. Rev.1581 (1998)Google Scholar
Wolff, Tobias Barrington, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sensible Pragmatism in Federal Jurisdictional Policy, 70 Ohio St. L.J.839, 840 (2009)Google Scholar
Shapiro, David L., Justice Ginsburg’s First Decade: Some Thoughts about her Contributions in the Fields of Procedure and Jurisdiction, 104 Colum. L. Rev.21, 21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Mark A., The Jurisdictional Nature of the Time to Appeal, 21 Ga. L. Rev.399, 408 (1986)Google Scholar
Dane, Perry, Jurisdictionality, Time, and the Legal Imagination, 23 Hofstra L. Rev.1, 5 (1994)Google Scholar
Rubin, Peter J., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Judge’s Perspective, 70 Ohio St. L.J.825, 830 (2009)Google Scholar
Wasserman, Howard M., The Demise of “Drive-By” Jurisdictional Rulings, 105 Nw. U. L. Rev.947 (2011)Google Scholar
Wasserman, Howard M., Jurisdiction, Merits, and Substantiality, 42 Tulsa L. Rev.579 (2007)Google Scholar
Clermont, Kevin M., Jurisdictional Fact, 91 Cornell L. Rev.973 (2006)Google Scholar
Burch, Elizabeth Chamblee, Nonjurisdictionality or Inequity, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy64 (2007)Google Scholar
Dane, Perry, Sad Time: Thoughts on Jurisdictionality, the Legal Imagination, and Bowles v. Russell, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy164 (2008)Google Scholar
Dodson, Scott, The Failure of Bowles v. Russell, 43 Tulsa L. Rev.631 (2008)Google Scholar
Dodson, Scott, Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy42 (2007)Google Scholar
Poor, E. King, The Jurisdictional Time Limit for an Appeal: The Worst Kind of Deadline – Except for All Others, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy151 (2008)Google Scholar
Idleman, Scott C., The Emergence of Jurisdictional Resequencing in the Federal Courts, 87 Cornell L. Rev.1, 9 (2001)Google Scholar
Clermont, Kevin M., Sequencing the Issues for Judicial Decisionmaking: Limitations from Jurisdictional Primacy and Intrasuit Preclusion, 63 Fla. L. Rev.301, 304–06, 328–29 (2011)Google Scholar
Rutledge, Peter B., Decisional Sequencing, 62 Ala. L. Rev.1, 3–4, 7 (2010)Google Scholar
Elliot, Heather, Jurisdictional Resequencing and Restraint, 43 New Eng. L. Rev.725 (2009)Google Scholar
Trammell, Alan M., Jurisdictional Sequencing, 47 Ga. L. Rev.1099, 1103 (2013)Google Scholar
Yip, Elijah & Yamamato, Eric K., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Jurisprudence of Process and Procedure, 20 U. Haw. L. Rev.647, 650 (1998)Google Scholar
Dodson, Scott, Hybridizing Jurisdiction, 99 Calif. L. Rev.1439 (2011)Google Scholar
Lee, Evan Tsen, The Dubious Concept of Jurisdiction, 54 Hastings L.J.1613, 1628 (2003)Google Scholar
Dodson, Scott, Party Subordinance in Federal Litigation, 83 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.1 (2014)Google Scholar
Berman, Paul Schiff, The New Legal Pluralism, 5 Ann. Rev. L. & Soc. Sci.225 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pospisil, Leopold, Modern and Traditional Administration of Justice in New Guinea, 19 J. Legal Pluralism & Unofficial L.93 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolls, Christine et al., A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50 Stan. L. Rev.1471 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle, International Law and Sociolegal Scholarship: Toward a Spatial Global Legal Pluralism, 41 Studies in L., Politics & Soc’y149 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahdieh, Robert B., Dialectical Regulation, 38 Conn. L. Rev.863 (2006)Google Scholar
Schapiro, Robert A., Toward a Theory of Interactive Federalism, 91 Iowa L. Rev.243 (2005)Google Scholar
Waters, Melissa A., Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend toward Interpretive Incorporation of Human Rights Treaties, 107 Colum. L. Rev.628 (2007)Google Scholar
Cover, Robert M., The Uses of Jurisdictional Redundancy: Interest, Ideology, and Innovation, 22 Wm. & Mary L. Rev.639 (1981)Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith, Law’s Migration: American Exceptionalism, Silent Dialogues, and Federalism’s Multiple Ports of Entry, 115 Yale L.J.1564 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, Judith, Afterword: Federalism’s Options, 14 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev.465, 473–74 (1996)Google Scholar
Cover, Robert M., The Supreme Court, 1982 Term – Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 Harv. L. Rev.4, 53 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, Judith, Living Their Legal Commitments: Paideic Communities, Courts, and Robert Cover (An Essay on Racial Segregation at Bob Jones University, Patrilineal Membership Rules, Veiling, and Jurisgenerative Practices), 17 Yale J.L. & Human.17, 25 (2005)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth B., Judgments in Search of Full Faith and Credit: The Last-in-Time Rule for Conflicting Judgments, 82 Harv. L. Rev.798 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Karen & Palmer, Barbara, The Clinton Clones: Ginsburg, Breyer, and the Clinton Legacy, 84 Judicature262, 265 (2001)Google Scholar
Miller, Russell A., Clinton, Ginsburg, and Centrist Federalism, 85 Ind. L.J.225, 226–27 (2010)Google Scholar
Miller, Russell A., In a Dissenting Voice: Justice Ginsburg’s Federalism, 43 New Eng. L. Rev.771, 774 (2009)Google Scholar
Freer, Richard D., Some Thoughts on the State of Erie after Gasperini, 76 Tex. L. Rev.1637 (1998)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, “A Decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication, 26 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev.927, 927 (2011)Google Scholar
Goldberg, Carole, Finding the Way to Indian Country: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Decisions in Indian Law Cases, 70 Ohio St. L.J.1003, 1008–09 (2009)Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin, The Federalism Revolution, 31 N.M. L. Rev.7 (2001)Google Scholar
Eid, Allison H., Federalism and Formalism, 11 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J.1191 (2003)Google Scholar
Massey, Calvin, Federalism and the Rehnquist Court, 53 Hastings L.J.431 (2002)Google Scholar
Huberfeld, Nicole et al., Plunging into Endless Difficulties: Medicaid and Coercion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 93 B.U. L. Rev.1 (2013)Google Scholar
Ray, Laura Krugman, Justice Ginsburg and the Middle Way, 68 Brook. L. Rev.629, 631 (2003)Google Scholar
Brown, George D., Counterrevolution? – National Criminal Law after Raich, 66 Ohio St. L.J.947 (2005)Google Scholar
Somin, Ilya, Gonzales v. Raich: Federalism as a Casualty of the War on Drugs, 15 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y507, 508 (2006)Google Scholar
Sandefur, Timothy, So It’s a Tax, Now What? Some of the Problems Remaining after NFIB v. Sebelius, 17 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.203, 212–13 (2013)Google Scholar
Greve, Michael S. & Klick, Jonathan, Preemption in the Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment, 14 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev.43, 84–88 (2006)Google Scholar
Miller, Russell A., Clinton, Ginsburg, and Centrist Federalism, 85 Ind. L.J.225, 271–76 (2010)Google Scholar
Young, Ernest A., The Rehnquist Court’s Two Federalisms, 83 Tex. L. Rev.1 (2004)Google Scholar
Porter, Margaret Jane, The Lohr Decision: FDA Perspective and Position, 52 Food & Drug L.J.7, 11 (1997)Google Scholar
Porter, Margaret Jane, The Lohr Decision: FDA Perspective and Position, 52 Food & Drug L.J.7, 11(1997)Google Scholar
Merritt, Deborah Jones, Three Faces of Federalism: Finding A Formula for the Future, 47 Vand. L. Rev.1563, 1571 (1994)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Remarks on Women’s Progress at the Bar and on the Bench, 89 Cornell L. Rev.801, 805 (2004)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader & Brill, Laura W., Women in the Federal Judiciary: Three Way Pavers and the Exhilarating Change President Carter Wrought, 64 Fordham L. Rev.281, 281 (1995)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, In Memoriam: Albert M. Sacks, 105 Harv. L. Rev.16, 17 (1991)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, In Pursuit of the Public Good: Lawyers Who Care, 52 Me. L. Rev.301, 304 (2000)Google Scholar
Guinier, Lani, Courting the People: Demosprudence and the Law/Politics Divide, 89 B.U. L. Rev.539 (2009)Google Scholar
Guinier, Lani, The Supreme Court, 2007 Term – Foreword: Demosprudence through Dissent, 122 Harv. L. Rev.4 (2008)Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Black, Ryan C. & Ringsmuth, Eve M., Hear Me Roar: What Provokes Supreme Court Justices to Dissent from the Bench?, 92 Minn. L. Rev.1560, 1568–73 (2009)Google Scholar
Cover, Robert M., The Supreme Court, 1981 Term – Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 Harv. L. Rev.4 (1983)Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause, 9 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y41, 45 (1986)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Notes
  • Edited by Scott Dodson
  • Book: The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Online publication: 05 February 2015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Notes
  • Edited by Scott Dodson
  • Book: The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Online publication: 05 February 2015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Notes
  • Edited by Scott Dodson
  • Book: The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Online publication: 05 February 2015
Available formats
×