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 majority of the Supreme Court is once again shifting their interpretation of the law in order to support right-wing political objectives! More law schools are kicking USNWR rankings to the curb. . More law schools are kicking USNWR rankings to the curb. appeared first on Above the Law. Huffington Post ].
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 courtdecision that would have lifted the policy on December 21, 2022. Alejandro Mayorkas et al.,
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.
In a 2-1 panel decision, the court also found that the was overly broad. In so ruling, the appellate court reversed a January 2019 district courtdecision. Courts in Arizona , Kansas and Texas have also ruled against these laws. There are good-faith objections to the BDS movement.
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.
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.
Ask any constitutionallaw student to name the most iconic Supreme Courtdecision, and they’ll probably answer Marbury v. Those two landmark rulings stand as the most celebrated decisions the court has ever issued. Arizona ), voting rights ( Baker v. Here’s the championship match-up.
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.”
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. Area of Law: ConstitutionalLaw, Civil Rights, Federal Authority: 25 points.
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. Like “disinformation,” it is heavily laden with subjectivity.
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. United States. United States , No.
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