The Firearm-Disability Dilemma: Property Insights into Felon Gun Rights
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Firearm-Disability Dilemma: Property Insights into Felon Gun Rights on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Firearm-Disability Dilemma: Property Insights into Felon Gun Rights on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Firearm-Disability Dilemma: Property Insights into Felon Gun Rights on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Firearm-Disability Dilemma: Property Insights into Felon Gun Rights on LinkedIn
She thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.
This Case Note first provides a background on the doctrine of absolute immunity. It then evaluates the court’s analysis in Gay and compares Gay with the Third Circuit’s decision in Williams v. Consovoy (3d Cir. 2006). Finally, this Case Note argues that Gay is more consistent with Supreme Court precedent on absolute immunity and more in line with historical understandings of the doctrine. This issue has particularly high stakes, as psychologists’ medical role can create a “guise of objectivity.” As a result, even a biased psychologist might still receive strong deference from a judge and could then be the reason a person spends the rest of their life in prison.
The author thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.
How often do Supreme Court opinions include what might be called “lobbying language,” which endorses a policy position while calling for another government entity to realize it? Reviewing relevant cases, this Essay finds that the sample set includes at least a dozen examples of lobbying language. As it turns out, lobbying is not so unusual for the Supreme Court.
He thanks Cheridan Christnacht, Matthew Makowski, Claire Rice, Virginia Robinson, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.
If you are a crime victim in Ohio, you have the rights “to be treated with fairness and respect,” to “a prompt conclusion” of your case, and “to be heard in any public proceeding . . . in which a right of the victim is implicated.”