Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights. This item is unavailable.Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights

Presumed GuiltyFor the greater part of its existence, Chemerinsky shows, deference to and empowerment of the police have been the modi operandi of the Supreme Court. From its conception in the late eighteenth century until the Warren Court in 1953, the Supreme Court rarely ruled against the police, and then only when police conduct was truly shocking. Animating seminal cases and justices from the Court’s history, Chemerinsky—who has himself litigated cases dealing with police misconduct for decades—shows how the Court has time and again refused to impose constitutional checks on police, all the while deliberately gutting remedies Americans might use to challenge police misconduct.Finally, in an unprecedented series of landmark rulings in the mid-1950s and 1960s, the pro-defendant Warren Court imposed significant constitutional limits on policing. Yet as Chemerinsky demonstrates, the Warren Court was but a brief historical aberration, a fleeting liberal era that ultimately concluded with Nixon’s presidency and the ascendance of conservative and “originalist” justices, whose rulings—in Terry v. Ohio (1968), City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983), and Whren v. United States (1996), among other cases—have sanctioned stop-and-frisks, limited suits to reform police departments, and even abetted the use of lethal chokeholds.Presumed GuiltyThe Color of LawPresumed Guilty

Presumed GuiltyThe Color of LawPresumed GuiltyPerilous Times: Free Speech in WartimePresumed Guilty—George Gascón, Los Angeles district attorneyPresumed Guilty—Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard UniversityPresumed Guilty—Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent for Slate—David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union