| Abstrakt: |
In the 2019 case Manning v. Caldwell, the Fourth Circuit considered the constitutionality of a Virginia statutory scheme that allowed "habitual drunkards" to be civilly interdicted. Plaintiffs argued that this scheme had been used to repeatedly jail and prosecute homeless alcoholics. Setting aside arguments under due process and equal protection, the Fourth Circuit instead raised the void-forvagueness doctrine to hold the scheme unconstitutional. This Recent Development provides the equal protection analysis that the Fourth Circuit strategically circumvented by using the void-for-vagueness doctrine. That analysis requires discriminatory intent in the initial passage of a facially neutral law to trigger heightened scrutiny. A review of the history of the challenged statutory scheme shows that the plaintiffs likely would have failed to meet this burden. In circumventing equal protection analysis, the Fourth Circuit illustrates a failing in current equal protection doctrine--that the requirement of showing discriminatory intent in the initial passage of a law is too high a bar and can lead to paradoxical results, especially when application of a facially neutral law has changed over time. In response, this Recent Development proposes a lower evidentiary bar when plaintiffs have credibly alleged disparate impact, but the challenged statute lacks sufficient legislative history. Although not guaranteeing plaintiffs a win, or even heightened scrutiny, the proposal would at least give plaintiffs a fighting chance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
