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
Gentry in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama with the assistance of the Alabama ACLU, Civil Rights Corps and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The lower court ruled in favor of Hester, enjoining the county from imposing cash bail amounts on defendants who could not afford them.
Milligan is a case about whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for the state’s U.S. “Yet, that is what Alabama has been commanded to do here: redraw its districts to subordinate traditional districting principles to race.” Wade’s recently overturned decision on reproductive rights, and Brown v.
The nation asserts that the city lacks criminal jurisdiction over Native Americans on the tribe’s lands without express congressional authorization, as per the 2020 US Supreme Court case McGirt v. The Muscogee Creek Tribe is originally from an area straddling the border between what is now Georgia and Alabama.
The courts ruling, which is expected by late June or early July, could have significant implications not only for Louisiana but also for other states attempting to balance compliance with the Voting Rights Act and redistricting. The disputes path to the Supreme Court on Monday was a circuitous one.
That not only amounts to a reversal of a precedent set earlier by the Court, but is an “alarming” step back in protecting juveniles, say Arthur Ago and Rochelle Swartz of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In Miller v. Four years later, in Montgomery v. Photo courtesy Mississippi Department of Corrections.
A constitutional ruling by an Alabama judicial body has the rest of the country wondering about its potentially widespread implications. We’re not talking about the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos created through IVF are children , but another recent decision. Sound familiar?
In an emergency posture, the Court summarily overturns a Wisconsin Supreme Courtdecision resolving a conflict over the State’s redistricting, a decision rendered after a 5-month process involving all interested stakeholders.
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.
The brief unsigned order, from which there were no public dissents, came less than four months after a divided Supreme Court agreed that the 2021 iteration of the map violated federal law by weakening the collective voting power of Black voters in the state. Alabama came back to the Supreme Court on Sept.
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.
That decision distinguishes between types of gambling that a state prohibits outright and types of gambling that a state tolerates subject to regulation. In 1983, responding to a lower-courtdecision holding that the transfer of those trust responsibilities violated the Texas Constitution, Texas terminated the trust relationship.
Although challenges to the Corporate Transparency Act abound — as highlighted by recent federal courtdecisions from Alabama and Oregon taking opposite positions on its constitutionality — the act is still law, so companies should comply with their filing requirements or face the potential consequences, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.
The Missouri Supreme Court upheld an appeals courtdecision on Wednesday, which found that the Senate congressional map did not violate the state’s constitution. Several Missouri citizens previously challenged the map, drawn by a court-appointed redistricting commission, for failing to preserve communities of interest.
the morning of a critical meeting at Harvard Law School, where I worked. Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain and l were sitting down with Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed , the founders of a legal research startup named Ravel Law, along with lawyers from Harvard’s Office of General Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and Gundersen Dettmer.
Supreme Courtdecision Batson vs. Kentucky sets the standard used by courts today for determining whether a party’s challenge of a juror is discriminatory, but critics say it’s easy to get around and challenges are rarely successful. The 1986 U.S.
Smith argued that trial in the Northern District of Florida was improper because he had accessed StrikeLines’ website from his home in Mobile (in the Southern District of Alabama) and the servers storing StrikeLines’ data were located in Orlando (in the Middle District of Florida). It thus does not trigger the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
Smith argued that trial in the Northern District of Florida was improper because he had accessed StrikeLines’ website from his home in Mobile (in the Southern District of Alabama) and the servers storing StrikeLines’ data were located in Orlando (in the Middle District of Florida). It thus does not trigger the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
The Alabama House of Representatives rejected a bill on Wednesday that would allow the resentencing of death row inmates who were sentenced by a trial judge. The bill was defeated in Alabama’s House Judicial Committee by a 9-4 vote. In 2016, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion on Hursts v.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. The court rejected Exxon’s argument that it could withhold documents based on an accountant-client privilege under Texas law. and non-U.S. Pritzker , Nos.
The Supreme Court is hitting its stride in sorting through the relists. At its last conference, it granted review of a one-time relist asking whether federal courts must follow state law requiring medical malpractice claims to be supported by an expert affidavit. New Relists Escobar v.
Here’s the Tuesday morning read: Supreme Court Restores Alabama Voting Map That a Court Said Hurt Black Voters (Adam Liptak, The New York Times). The surprising liberal consensus emerging about Biden’s Supreme Courtdecision (Ronald Brownstein, CNN). What Makes a Good Supreme Court Justice?
In 1993, William Neilly was sentenced in Michigan state court to life without the possibility of parole for a homicide he committed as a juvenile. Because of intervening Supreme Courtdecisions prohibiting the imposition of no-parole life sentences for juvenile offenders, he was resentenced to a lesser sentence.
The US Supreme Court announced Monday it will review the legality of state efforts to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors — a contentious issue in a nation deeply divided over transgender rights and the role of medical intervention in youth gender identity. The case, US v.
Reeves , 20-1084 , is the latest state-on-top petition in a habeas case alleging that a federal habeas court failed to defer to a state courtdecision affirming a criminal conviction, as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Alabama explicitly asks for summary reversal. While cases from the U.S.
An increasing number of Americans now believe US Supreme Courtdecision-making is based more on political ideology than the rule of law. Evidence that this disturbing trend is true can be found when taking a closer look at the shift in how the Court has dealt with juvenile cases dating back to 2005.
He is also a graduate of Columbia Law School. In the end, though, a large part of the story turned on the question of just what it was that enabled Harlan to see the law so differently from his peers. Harlan also joined a unanimous court in 1889 in rejecting a challenge to the Chinese Exclusion Act. The back story.
The answer the court gave was a stern rebuke, vitiating the plenary control that lower-courtdecisions had granted the state for more than a quarter of a century. The lower courts quickly allowed Texas to act under those provisions to subject tribal operations to the full range of its regulations.
The theory runs against the text, history, and case law of the Thirteenth Amendment. The court came to this question by a rather circuitous route. That academic attention is generally a reference to a 1990 Northwestern University Law Review article, which is cited by the Court in its order. Alabama , 219 U.S.
It can be next to impossible to see how law enforcement — in league with paid, self-styled “experts” — spreads new, often unproven methods. The system is at its most opaque when prosecutors know evidence is unfit for court but choose to game the rules, hoping judges and juries will believe it and vote to convict. . … Make it sing!”.
In a somewhat uncharacteristic move, the appellate court went further by vacating the permanent injunction granted by the district court and rendering its own decision stating that “remanding to the district court would be futile here because the record permits only one conclusion.”
Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the Supreme Court will consider one question: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Pro-life advocates argue laws like Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act , a 15-week abortion limit, are clearly constitutional. Law professor Helen Alvaré et al.
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.
State governments are already responding to the Dobbs decision with new regulations banning abortion or working to reinforce protections for people seeking abortions in their states across state lines. Below is an updating guide to states with now-active legislation or trigger laws banning or criminalizing abortion. Washington Gov.
Supreme Court the chance to disapprove the California Supreme Courtdecision in Adolph v. Supreme Court had misinterpreted California law about the viability of representative actions under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act when representatives’ individual claims are being arbitrated (see here ).
While the Supreme Court routinely throws out lower-courtdecisions granting prisoners habeas relief, its fairly uncommon for the justices to summarily grant relief to habeas petitioners. That brings us to this weeks one new relist: Alabama v. The court has now relisted Alabamas case. California.
As the year comes to a close, SCOTUSblog looks back at some of the individuals who died in 2020 after living lives that brought them – at different times and for different reasons – to the Supreme Court of the United States. All left an imprint on the court or the law. Some worked behind the scenes. A few attained modest fame.
In May, a Michigan judge granted an injunction to stop the state’s 1931 law banning abortion. The injunction came after the Supreme Court’s leaked decision overturning Roe v. Wade —the Supreme Courtdecision guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion. Wade in their decision in Dobbs v.
A three-judge federal district court agreed with them and prohibited the state from using it in future elections. In May 2024, a divided Supreme Court paused the district courtsdecision, clearing the way for the state to use S.B. Alabama suggests that the court has two options to remedy this expansion.
The decision on the eviction moratorium was a decisive rebuke for the Biden administration, with the majority writing that it “strains credulity to believe” that the public-health law at the center of the case gives the Centers for Disease Control the power to enact the moratorium. “If to challenge the moratorium.
Now, Harvard Law Professor and Bloomberg columnist has added a Trump-like call for the use of defamation lawsuit to combat “fake news.” The threat to the free press is obvious and was the basis for foundational courtdecisions. Sullivan, sued for defamation and won under Alabamalaw. seven times.
“This will go down in history reading as a 6-3 opinion, but it was actually 5-4 because Justice Amy Coney Barrett actually did set out one of the key arguments, which is that you can’t criminally prosecute over official versus unofficial acts,” said Joe Patrice, an editor of Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like a Lawyer.
Wade, a landmark 1973 Supreme Courtdecision that legalized abortion across the US. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was not a constitutional right, and rather that it is a state issue, laying the foundation for states to ban abortion. Wade as the law of the land again.”
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