This chapter examines the historical development of the Spanish Inquisition in New Spain (Mexico), investigating its processes, targets, and ambitions. It surveys the first inquisition prosecutions there, which were carried out not by inquisitors per se, but by mendicant friars as well as the episcopal court. After King Philip II authorized an inquisition tribunal for New Spain in 1569, inquisitors quickly began to operate in Mexico City. At the same time, Spanish inquisitors in New Spain had no investigative or coercive powers over New Spain’s Indigenous populations, whose religious beliefs and practices were monitored by the episcopal legal jurisdiction. New Spain’s inquisitors prosecuted far fewer serious heretics than their counterparts in Spain itself, though the tribunal was interested in Portuguese conversos, especially when it was encountering financial difficulties.

It was not implausibe for Spanish inquisitors and their wider staff to provoke scandal in their communities through moral, sexual, physical, and financial offenses. The same held true for Spanish Catholic clergy at large. This essay examines the varieties and possible sites of inquisitorial malfeasance, as well as the special legal privileges that constituted one of the main attractions of being employed in an inquisition tribunal. The essay also ponders in particular the crime and heresy of clerical solicitation of female penitents for sexual favors. Those clerical malefactors were sentenced in secret and punished via exile that took them out of their communities. They thus kept their identities and offenses a secret. At the same time, however the Spanish Inquisition offered a legal platform for female complainants to voice their grievances.

The inquisition tribunal in Lima, Peru, has received comparatively less scholarly attention because its sources are scattered and remain relatively incomplete. This chapter examines the inquisitorial jurisdiction in terms both of geography and of the Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans who attracted the inquisitors’ attention. It covers the lives and careers of prominent inquisitors, and addresses the variety of alleged offenders. It identifies different phases of tribunal activity, provides examples of the offenses that Lima’s inquisitors targeted in each phase, and delves into trials of faith for the heresy of crypto-judaism, the so-called “Great Complicity” of 1635–39. Inquisitors in Lima were interested in the same range of offenses as their counterparts in Spain. The tribunal worried about the presence of hidden Jews, Muslims, and Protestants in the Peruvian Viceroyalty and the effects they might have. They also were preoccupied with minor offenders such as visionaries, sorcerers, and bigamists.

In this chapter, we review theory and research regarding sources and predictors of parental knowledge. Specifically, we focus on adolescents’ information management, parenting and parent–adolescent relationships, parents’ and adolescents’ characteristics, and family context as sources and predictors of parental knowledge of adolescents’ activities, whereabouts, and associations. The findings show that disclosure and secrecy are fundamental sources of parental knowledge and that when parent–adolescent relationships are positive (e.g. warm, trusting, and autonomy supportive), parents are more likely to acquire accurate knowledge about their adolescents’ daily lives. The impact of parental solicitation and rule-setting on parental knowledge often depends on many other factors such as parenting or cultural context. Parental knowledge also differs as a function of parent gender, adolescent age and gender, adolescent well-being, family structure, ethnic background, and cultural values. We provide future directions for research and emphasize the need for theory-driven research.

The first part of Chapter 6 focuses on cases about the nomination process. A large percentage of these cases come from New York where party conventions are the primary method for nominating candidates. The chapter divides nomination cases into those concerning the initiation of candidacy (e.g., nominating petitions) and those concerning choosing nominees. Of more consequence are the cases concerning candidate speech and campaign finance, both of which led to major SCOTUS decisions. The speech cases focused heavily on codes placing limits on what candidates in judicial elections could say. In addition to speech code limitations, there were speech-related cases concerning defamation, misrepresentation, false statements or claims, impugning opponents, and improper promises or statements. In addition to speech issues, the chapter discussed other forms of improper candidate behavior (e.g., improper use of work resources by incumbents running for reelection). Campaign finance issues included those related to fundraising (e.g., solicitation by candidates, reporting requirements, requests for recusal due to parties or lawyers being involved in fundraising for the judge/s campaign), loans, expenditures, and public funding.

San Francisco sex workers in California filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the district attorney, arguing that the criminalization of sex work violates several constitutional rights, including the right to sexual privacy and free speech. The Ninth Circuit rejected the sex workers’ arguments, concluding, in part, that there is no fundamental liberty interest to engage in prostitution. In addition, the Ninth Circuit relied on the lower court’s determination that there is an established link between prostitution and trafficking. A feminist opinion could offer much more insight into the nature of sex work, the question of sexual privacy, and the reliance on claims that sex work is inherently dangerous.

Solicitation of foreign interference in an election represents a betrayal of public trust because it threatens to undermine the people’s right of self-determination – a foundational norm of our constitutional order. Section 1 of the chapter focuses on candidate Trump’s solicitation of Russian email hacking during his speech in Florida in July of 2016 – a speech that set the tone for much of what was to come during the Trump presidency. Likewise, Section 2 focuses on an even more daring solicitation: President Trump’s solicitation of interference from Ukraine during a call with its President, Volodymyr Zelensky. Section 3 looks at the legal status of the domestic norm against soliciting foreign interference. This chapter argues that, for the removal of all doubt, Congress should pass a new statute criminalizing the solicitation of foreign involvement in elections. Section 4 responds to the argument that such a statute could not be applied against the President because doing so would conflict with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations. Finally, Section 5 examines the ultimate remedy of impeachment as a tool for sanctioning a President who solicits foreign involvement in an election.