El debate estadounidense a propósito de la aplicación del escrutinio estricto a las clasificaciones raciales

Referencias bibliográficas

• Ackerman, B. (1985) Beyond Carolene Products. Harvard Law Review, 98 (4).
• Ackerman, B. (2014). We the people, volume III: the civil rights revolution. The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press.
• Balkin, J. M. (2021). Korematsu as the Tribute that Vice Pays to Virtue. Arkansas Law Review, 74 (2).
• Bernstein, D. E. (2003). Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism. Georgetown Law Journal, 92.
• Bernstein, D.E. (2003). Lochner’s Legacy’s Legacy. Texas Law Review, 82.
• Beschle, D. L. (2018). No More Tiers? Proportionality as an Alternative to Multiple Levels of Scrutiny in Individual Rights Cases. Pace Law Review, 38.
• Bickel, A. M. (1986). The least dangerous Branch. Yale University Press.
• Bixby, D.L., (1981). The Roosevelt Court, Democratic Ideology, and Minority Rights: Another Look at United States v. Classic. The Yale Law Journal, 90 (4).
• Bork, R.H. (1991). The tempting of America. The political seduction of the Law. Simon & Schuster.
• Brilmayer, L. (1986). Carolene, Conflicts, and the Fate of the “Insider-Outsider”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 134 (6).
• Bunker, M. D., Calvert, C. & Nevin, W. C. (2011). Strict in Theory, But Feeble in Fact? First Amendment Strict Scrutiny and the Protection of Speech. Communication Law and Policy, 16 (4).
• Chemerinsky, E. (1991). Symposium: one hundred twenty-five years of the Reconstruction Amendments, The Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment: the unfulfilled promise. Loyola Los Angeles Law Review, 25 (4).
• Chemerinsky, E. (2015). Constitutional Law. Principles and Policies. Wolters Kluger, 5th edition.
• Cover, R. M. (1981). The origins of judicial activism in the protection of minorities. Yale Law Journal, 91.
• Cushman, B. (1998). Rethinking the New Deal, Oxford University Press. New York.
• Fallon, R. H. (2007). Strict judicial scrutiny. UCLA Law Review, 54.
• Fallon, R. H. (2019). The nature of constitutional rights. The invention and logic of strict judicial scrutiny. Cambridge University Press.
• Fiss, O. M. (1976). Groups and the equal protection clause. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 5, (2).
• Fiss, O. M. (1979). The Supreme Court 1978 Term. Foreword: The forms of justice. Harvard Law Review, 93 (1)
• Fleming, J. E. (2006). “There is only one Equal Protection Clause”: An appreciation of Justice Stevens’s Equal Protection jurisprudence. Fordham Law Review, 74
• Gillman, H. (1995). The Constitution besieged. Duke University Press.
• Gilman, F. (2004). The Famous Footnote Four: A History of the Carolene Products Footnote. Texas Law Review, 46.
• Goldberg, S. B. (2004). Equality Without Tiers. Southern California Law Review, 77.
• Gottlieb, S. E. (2002). Tears for Tiers on the Rehnquist Court. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 4.
• Greene, J. (2011). The anticanon. Harvard Law Review, 125.
• Gunther, G. (1972). The Supreme Court 1971 Term. Foreword: In search of evolving doctrine on a changing court: a model for a newer equal protection. Harvard Law Review, 86, (1).
• Hutchinson, D. L. (2003). Unexplainable on grounds other than race: The inversion of privilege and subordination in equal protection jurisprudence. University of Illinois Law Review, 2003 (3).
• Klarman, M. (1991). Interpretive History of Modern Equal Protection. Michigan Law Review, 90 (2).
• Karlan, P. S. (2001). Easing the spring: strict scrutiny and affirmative action after the redistricting cases. William & Mary Law Review, 43.
• Karst, K. L. & Horowitz, H. W. (1979) The Bakke Opinions and Equal Protection Doctrine. Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, 14 (1).
• Kelso, R. (2001). Standards of review under the equal protection clause and related constitutional doctrines protecting individual rights: the base plus six model and modern Supreme Court practice. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 4.
• Lusky, L. (1980). Public Trial and Public Right: The Missing Bottom Line. Hofstra Law Review, 8 (2).
• Lusky, L. (1982). Footnote Redux: A “Carolene Products” Reminiscence. Columbia Law Review, 82 (6).
• Lusky, L. (1993). Out nine tribunes: the Supreme Court in modern America. Praeger Publishers Inc.
• Massey, C. R. (2004). The New Formalism: Requiem for Tiered Scrutiny? University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 6.
• Mathews, J. & Sweet, A. S. (2010). All things in proportion-American rights review and the problem of balancing. Emory Law Journal, 60.
• Nowak, J.E & Rotunda, R.D. & Young, J.N. (1986). Constitutional law. West Publishing Company, 3rd edition.
• Pascoe, P. (2009). What comes naturally: Miscegenation law and the making of race in America. Oxford University Press.
• Pettinga, G. L. (1987). Note, Rational basis with bite: intermediate scrutiny by any other name. Indiana Law Journal, 72.
• Poueymirou, M. (2017). Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & the Death of the Political Process Doctrine. University of California Irvine Law Review, 7.
• Robinson, G. & Robinson, T. (2005). Korematsu and Beyond: Japanese Americans and the origins of strict scrutiny. Law & Contemporary Problems, 68.
• Rostow, E. V. (1945). The Japanese American Cases – A Disaster. The Yale Law Journal, 54 (3).
• Ross II, B.L. (2013). Democracy and renewed distrust: Equal Protection and the evolving judicial conception of Politics. California Law Review, 201 (6).
• Rubenfeld, J. (1997). Affirmative Action. The Yale Law Journal, 107 (2).
• Rubin, P.J. (2000). Reconnecting doctrine and purpose: a comprehensive approach to strict scrutiny after Adarand and Shaw. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149 (1).
• Shaman, J. M. (1984). Cracks in the Structure: The Coming Breakdown of the Levels of Scrutiny. Ohio State Law Journal, 45.
• Simmons, B. E. (1996). Reconsidering strict scrutiny of affirmative action. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 2.
• Siegel, R. B. (2013). The Supreme Court 2012 Term. Foreword: equality divided. Harvard Law Review.
• Siegel, S.A. (1991). Lochner Era Jurisprudence and the American Constitutional Tradition. North Carolina Law Review, 70 (1).
• Siegel, S. A. (2006). The origin of the compelling state interest test and strict scrutiny. American Journal of Legal History, 48 (4).
• Strauss, M. (2011). Reevaluating suspect classifications. Seattle University Law Review, 35.
• Sunstein, C. (1987). Lochner ’s legacy. Columbia Law Review, 87 (5).
• Thayer, J.B. (1893). The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law. Little, Brown and Company.
• Tribe, L. (1988). American Constitutional Law. The Foundation Press Inc., Mineola, New York, 2nd edition.
• Urofsky, M. I. (1997). Division and discord. The Supreme Court under Stone and Vinson, 1941-1953. University of South Carolina Press.
• Vieira, N. (1969). Racial imbalance, black separatism, and permissible classification by race. Michigan Law Review, 67.
• Wallenstein, P. (2004). Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law – An American History. Palgrave Macmillan.
• White, G. E. (1996). The First Amendment comes of age: the emergence of Free Speech in twentieth century America. Michigan Law Review, 95 (2).
• White, G. E. (2000). The Constitution and the New Deal, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Winkler, A. (2006). Fatal in theory and strict in fact: an empirical analysis of strict scrutiny in the federal courts. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59 (3).
• Yoshino, K. (2011). The new Equal Protection. Harvard Law Review, 124 (3).