Emory Law Journal

ELJ OnlineVolume 67

"Politics!"? Of Course! A Reflection on Washington v. Trump

Paul Babie | 67 Emory L.J. Online 2001 (2017)

Were the decisions in Washington v. Trump political? Of course they were! While some may not care to admit it, President Trump correctly identifies—albeit for the wrong reasons—the political nature of the decisions. Rather than rendering them illegitimate, as the President suggested, the political nature of the District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions is the very essence of their legitimacy and validity. This Essay explains why.

Read more »

Briefing the Supreme Court: Promoting Science or Myth?

Melissa Hamilton | 67 Emory L.J. Online 2021 (2017)

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Packingham v. North Carolina that the state’s law banning registered sex offenders from using social networking sites was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. An issue that has arisen in the case is the state’s justification for the ban. North Carolina and thirteen other states represented in a friend of the court brief make three claims concerning the risk of registered sex offenders: (1) sex offenders have a notoriously high rate of sexual recidivism; (2) sex offenders are typically crossover offenders in having both adult and child victims; and (3) sexual predators commonly use social networking sites to lure children for sexual exploitation purposes. The collective states contend that these three claims are supported by scientific evidence and common sense. This Essay outlines how the states misconstrue, and at times misrepresent, the scientific evidence they cite regarding such risk-based claims.

Read more »

Why Don't Some White Supremacist Groups Pay Taxes?

Eric Franklin Amarante | 67 Emory L.J. Online 2045 (2018)

A number of white supremacist groups enjoy tax-exempt status. These hate groups do not have to pay federal taxes and people who give money to these groups may take deductions on their personal taxes. This recognition not only results in potential lost revenue for government programs, but it also serves as a public subsidy of racist propaganda and operates as the federal government’s imprimatur of white supremacist activities. This is all due to an unnecessarily broad definition of “educational” that somehow encompasses the activities of universities, symphonies, and white supremacists. This Essay suggests a change in the Treasury Regulations to restrict the definition of educational organizations to refer only to traditional, degree-granting institutions, distance-learning organizations, or certain other enumerated entities. With this change, we would no longer allow white supremacists to call themselves charities, remove the public subsidy of such reprehensible organizations, and eliminate the government’s implicit blessing of hate groups.

Read more »