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
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit eventually affirmed the district court’s denial of the legislators’ attempt on the ground that the state attorney general was adequately defending the law. Federal law curtails the extent to which a federal court can consider arguments that a prisoner has not presented in state court.
The Colorado Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a proposal that would fix a decades-old legal standard that has made it easy for attorneys to exclude people of color, especially African Americans, from serving on juries, reports the Colorado Sun. The 1986 U.S.
There is an interesting fight brewing in Kentucky between Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Gov. Beshear has correctly cited a major victory recently before the Kentucky Supreme Court — an unanimous decision in favor of his authority to issue pandemic orders. Andy Beshear. In Beshear v.
Was the Supreme Courtdecision last month overruling Roe v. Wade one of the worst decisions in the 233-year history of the Court? public seems to feel the same way. The decision has been criticized as “ an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry ” It was effectively overturned in 1983.
The trial court said it was troubled by the “disproportionate number of African-Americans who were struck,” but it was reluctant to grant Broadnax’s challenge to the strikes under Batson v. Kentucky because “it implies some sort of nefarious intent on the part of prosecutors.” Kentucky ex rel. rescheduled before the Jan.
The 5th Circuit rejected the idea that clearly established federal law, as established by holdings of the Supreme Court, permitted a court to imply Gladys Mobley’s bias from the facts of the case. Kentucky ex rel. rescheduled before the Mar.
The justices did not act on two sets of high-profile petitions that they considered last week: a group of challenges to bans imposed by Illinois and several municipalities in that state on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as challenges to bans on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee and Kentucky.
James Harlan served in Congress and as Kentucky’sattorney general, and was a devoted follower of Henry Clay, to the point that Clay’s politics and James’ were almost interchangeable. Having lived through Dred Scott , he was deeply conscious of how mistakes by the court could lead to terrible outcomes. Crossen Co.
Some of these states had inactive preexisting laws banning abortion that have returned to effect in the wake of Roe, while others intentional passed “trigger laws” with language enacting their provisions the moment a courtdecision overturning Roe or an amendment or legislation codifying a state’s right to restrict abortion went into effect.
On October 19th, 2022, a coalition of 19 Republican attorneys general (“AGs”) announced an investigation into six NZBA signatories: Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo (the “NZBA Investigation”). courtdecisions finding antitrust violations in connection with climate pledges.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that she believed the Court’s interpretation would allow defendants to “sidestep” the general bar on appellate review by “shoehorning” a civil rights or federal officer removal argument into their case for removal. They seek a courtdecision setting aside government approvals of the power plant.
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