This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Supreme Court allowed Alabama to implement a congressional redistricting map that includes only one district with a majority of Black voters. While a lower court agreed with challengers that the map constitutes illegal racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court granted a stay, effectively putting the order on hold.
Supreme Court held that challengers showed a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that an Alabama Congressional redistricting plan likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In reaching its decision, the Court confirmed that the Voting Rights Act prohibits discriminatory effects, not just discriminatory intent.
Before trial, Smith moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue, citing the Constitution’s Venue Clause (Article III, §2, cl. The District Court concluded that factual disputes related to venue should be resolved by the jury and denied Smith’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. [T]he
Before trial, Smith moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue, citing the Constitution’s Venue Clause (Article III, §2, cl. The District Court concluded that factual disputes related to venue should be resolved by the jury and denied Smith’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. [T]he
Having lived through Dred Scott , he was deeply conscious of how mistakes by the court could lead to terrible outcomes. Comparing courtdecisions with which he disagreed to Dred Scott was almost a reflexive tactic of his. And it would have given African Americans the assurance that the Supreme Court was on their side.
Professor Koppelman quoted a 1911 servitude decision in Bailey v. Alabama , 219 U.S. ” Bailey involved an Alabamalaw making it a crime to refuse to do labor under a contract. Alabama , 219 U.S. ” Bailey involved an Alabamalaw making it a crime to refuse to do labor under a contract.
However, he then said it was worth extending the moratorium because it would take time for a court to intervene and, in the interim, they could rush out money to renters despite the lack of constitutional authority to do so. Like many, I was mystified by the Supreme Courtdecision not to strike down the moratorium.
The threat to the free press is obvious and was the basis for foundational courtdecisions. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision over 50 years ago in New York Times v. Sullivan, sued for defamation and won under Alabamalaw. seven times.
The intermediate appellate court held that the defendant was not entitled to present the defense because he had “reasonable legal alternatives” to trespass and obstruction even if those alternatives were not effective. BP p.l.c. , Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the companies, one by the U.S. In Juliana v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content