English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This Article, contributed to a symposium on "Commerce, Institutions, and Consent" held at the University of Oklahoma Law School on October 19th, 2019, explains how three distinct legal developments are on a collision course. The criminal law of sexual assault has evolved to focus primarily on negative sexual autonomy, but there is no normative consensus on just what “consent” means, nor does typical statutory language suggest considered legislative choice from among the possible meanings. Meanwhile, time has reinforced the Supreme Court’s elevation of positive sexual autonomy above ordinary constitutional interests in Lawrence v. Texas. Finally, the Court’s decisions in Johnson and Dimaya have resolved decades of uncertainty in favor of a robust version of the void-for-vagueness doctrine.  Conclusory statutory condemnations of sex without consent therefore have become plausible targets of facial constitutional challenges. The Article discusses the looming collision and offers ways to mediate the emerging conflicts among the values of negative autonomy, positive autonomy, and legality.

Due Process Overbreadth? The Void for Vagueness Doctrine, Fundamental Rights, and the Brewing Storm over Undefined Consent in Sexual Assault Statutes.