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
The post Arizona Looks To Protect Cops From That Pesky First Amendment appeared first on Above the Law. Because the problem with the killing of George Floyd was that someone was allowed to film it.
Arizona , 598 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court sided with John Montenegro Cruz, a death row inmate in Arizona. According to a 5-4 majority, Arizona erred in refusing to apply the Court’s precedent set forth in Simmons v. After Cruz’s conviction became final, the Supreme Court held in Lynch v.
Arizona , 602 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and implicate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. In Smith v.
Supreme Court’s January docket features several closely watched cases involving constitutionallaw. At the trial, the State of Arizona called Department of Public Safety (DPS) forensic scientist Greggory Longoni, who testified that the seized substances were methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis. In Smith v.
Supreme Court had a busy week, hearing oral arguments in five cases. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Cruz v.
Share On Thursday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Vega v. Tekoh , in which a 6-3 court held that a violation of Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. The Supreme Court rejected the 9th Circuit’s decision, characterizing it as an “extension” of Miranda and “wrong.”
Supreme Court recently returned to the bench for its February sitting. The issues before the Court involved Native American law and immigration. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Denezpi v. Litigation about the Rule ensued, and the Supreme Court granted review of the Second Circuit’s opinion.
We have been discussing the state laws requiring contractors and employees to swear that they do not support the the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (“BDS”) movement against Israel. I have long maintained that the law is unconstitutional as a limitation of free speech and associational rights. In NAACP v. Recently, the U.S.
Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Counterman v. 723 (2015), but ultimately decided the case before reaching the constitutional issue. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court acknowledged that “[s]ocial media magnify the potential for a speaker’s innocent words to be misunderstood.”
Supreme Court returned from recess on January 4, 2024. The Court’s January session will feature some of the Term’s biggest cases, with several testing the limit of the federal government’s regulatory power. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Federal Bureau of Investigation v. In Siegel v. I, § 8, Cl.
Ask any constitutionallaw student to name the most iconic Supreme Court decision, and they’ll probably answer Marbury v. Those two landmark rulings stand as the most celebrated decisions the court has ever issued. Maryland : “[W]e must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.” Board of Education.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has blocked border enforcement by the state under Texas’s SB 4. Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigration laws. The state can no seek a review with the Supreme Court itself.
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a major challenge to the federal E-rate program, which subsidizes telephone and high-speed internet services in schools, libraries, rural areas, and low-income communities in urban areas. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 11th, and District of Columbia Circuits.
In Arizona et al. Supreme Court agreed to keep the federal government’s Title 42 policy in place while legal challenges continue. By a vote of 5-4, the justices stayed a lower court decision that would have lifted the policy on December 21, 2022. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the States’ motion.
We have previously discussed the trial, which began with the introduction of evidence that the New York Times editorial board ignored internal objections to publishing the 2017 column linking Palin to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which then-U.S. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz was seriously injured. The editorial was grossly unfair.
The majority of the Supreme Court is once again shifting their interpretation of the law in order to support right-wing political objectives! We're now at 10 percent of law schools that say they will not participate in the ranking process. 2022 was the year that ConstitutionalLaw dramatically shifted (to the right). [
We have previously discussed the trial, which began with the introduction of evidence that the New York Times editorial board ignored internal objections to publishing the 2017 column linking Palin to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which then-U.S. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz was seriously injured. The editorial was grossly unfair.
Below is my column in The Hill on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the case of a former West Point cadet who was barred from suing over the handling of her alleged rape. The case would have allowed a reconsideration of the Feres Doctrine, one of the most damaging and pernicious doctrines ever created by the Supreme Court.
US law student and undergraduate delegates passed four proposed amendments Sunday at the first-ever Model Constitutional Convention hosted by Arizona State University (ASU) Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. This followed two days of discussion and deliberation in Phoenix, Arizona. New London.
Mark practices in State and Federal Court representing injury victims throughout Wisconsin. He has found considerable success as a rising star in the Arizona legal industry and had the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court on three different occasions. You can learn more on The Entrekin Law Firm’s personal injury page.
However, the moment that most struck me was an exchange between Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Maine Chief Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub where Taub appeared to acknowledge that legislatures have every right to ban critical race theory (CRT) from being taught.
Now, a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens. Not surprisingly, the state of California is leading the effort to get the Supreme Court to reverse a decision enjoining the government from censorship efforts.
While the Supreme Court has allowed limited exceptions, it does not bestow on the government the open right to strip protection of speech because it is deemed “hateful.” Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct.
Supreme Court will hear two significant voting rights cases out of Arizona. The cases, Arizona Republican Party v. ” The State of Arizona grants all citizens an equal opportunity to vote in person or by mail. However, it also has voting laws in place that govern those voting processes. Next month, the U.S.
Below is my column in the Hill on overheated rhetoric of revolution that seems to have overtaken our public discourse, particularly with regard to the Supreme Court. This week, Arizona Democrats pushed a “ F–k the Fourth Event” and told people to “Bring comfortable shoes, water, lawn chairs, posters, and your anger.”
There is an important ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week where a divided panel held that Kelli Ward, the Chair of the Arizona Republican Party and former senatorial candidate, cannot withhold her cell phone records from the January 6th Committee. 6 committee. Bonta (APF), 141 S.
The law is notably neutral on content. That is a key distinction given prior Supreme Court rulings like Reed v Town of Gilbert. In that case, the court ruled unanimously that an Arizona ordinance was unconstitutional. Under the ordinance, “ideological signs” and “political signs” were subject to different limitations.
Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law. They have often found the courts closed to them.
In the name of democracy, these Democrats have demanded that courts prevent voters from being able to vote for incumbent members. It has been rejected repeatedly in the courts. The latest such ruling comes from the Arizona Supreme Court which ruled that Democrats could not prevent Rep. The court case is Thomas Hansen v.
The argument is based on erroneous claims about the underlying bills and the prior rulings of the Supreme Court. ” Now on to the specific Voting Rights Act changes and the prior Supreme Court vote. It did not make discrimination lawful or, in any way, limit access to the courts. It is time for a reality check.
In a series of recent decisions, federal courts across the United States have addressed a range of significant legal issues, from civil rights and constitutionallaw to administrative authority and criminal justice. DEA , where the court upheld the DEAs denial of psilocybin use under the Controlled Substances Act.
United States (1997), which involved federal requirements that states cooperate on gun control measures, the Supreme Court enforced an anti-commandeering line that allowed states to refuse such federal orders. The Supreme Court has warned that financial penalties can be so coercive that they effectively commandeer states.
Whether such state enforcement is constitutional will be hashed out in the courts in light of the 2012 decision in Arizona v. However, the argument that it constitutes an invasion in the constitutional sense would not be a compelling argument in federal court. United States.
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The Supreme Court reversed an intermediate appellate court’s decision affirming a superior court determination that the defendant could not present a necessity defense.
The threat to the free press is obvious and was the basis for foundational court decisions. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. Like “disinformation,” it is heavily laden with subjectivity.
Cawthorn prevailed in a federal court, which dismissed that effort; an appeal of that ruling will be heard May 3 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va. There are similar efforts to block members like Arizona GOP Reps. Sheffey to hold a Virginia state court office, given his support for the Confederacy.
From the prosecution of Bill Cosby to a federal lawsuit against Georgia, courts are dealing with cases where government lawyers repeat the same implausible claims with the same unconvincing results. Democratic National Committee , an Arizona case in which the U.S. In Cosby v.
Below is my column in The Messenger on the challenge facing the Supreme Court in the coming week over the electoral disqualification of former president Donald Trump in Colorado and Maine. The appeal in Maine has been filed and can now work its way up to the Court. Colorado is expected to file with the Court this week.
Below is my column in USA Today on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the challenge to the Arizona’s new election rules. The 6-3 decision undermines the claims raised in the new challenge to Georgia’s election law. The lower courts divided on the question. Some rejected the discrimination claims.
It is the “why not” approach to criminal and constitutionallaw. One possible reason Willis dropped some of these targets is that she knew the indictment of these senators would have been quickly and firmly rejected by the courts as the criminalization of political speech.
One thing, however, we agree upon: it is time for the federal courts to rule on this theory to bring clarity to the election. That may now occur in West Virginia where Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wants a federal court to throw out a lawsuit attempting to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in the state. Castro received a J.D.
After the election, politicians and pundits announced a new constitutional crisis surrounding the effort to downsize the federal government led by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Biden was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, including with unilateral actions through executive orders.
There is now no impediment to a charge for incitement, a much-touted possible charge that some of us believe would fail ultimately in the courts on either the trial or appellate levels. Chris Collins as well as Joe Arpaio, the highly controversial former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Duncan Hunter and former GOP Rep.
The Trump team has focused on states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Gore in 2000, the Supreme Court ordered an effective halt to further litigation, but that was just one state. This is where we could see a rare court intervention in a contested election in Congress. In Bush v. 8 or beyond Dec.
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