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
I have the honor of speaking today at the Tenth Circuit judicial conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I will be part of a panel discussing the Supreme Court’s recent religious freedom cases and related First Amendment issues. Lucero of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. the Court handed down two major such rulings.
The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court decision in favor of the IRS and its authority to conduct the audit. Thomas noted that in 2005 a fractured divided courtruled Gonzales v. Peter Hermes, Kevin Desilet, Samantha Murphy, and John Murphy refused to verify their tax liabilities because they feared criminal prosecution.
Share The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the conviction of Billy Raymond Counterman, a Colorado man who was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking based on his Facebook messages. She canceled appearances, started to carry a gun, and eventually left Colorado for the east coast.
There is a new ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that could be headed for a major showdown in the Supreme Court. Elenis could force a hitherto evasive Court to rule directly on the conflict between anti-discrimination laws and the religious clauses. It was like Brown v.
Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Fox News host Tucker Carlson to face civil liability for their commentary on transgender policies or controversies after the recent tragic shooting in Colorado. I was, therefore, gladdened by the Supreme Courtruling 8-1 in favor of free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church.
Below is my column in the Hill on the acceptance of a major new case by the Supreme Court on the issue of free speech and anti-discrimination laws. Those words from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals about Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act may be some of the most honest but chilling words ever uttered in a federal opinion.
The office of Secretary of State Jena Griswald issued a statement that, since the appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, Trump’s name will remain on the ballot “unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Courtruling.” Supreme Court.
Judge Redford also rejected the effort of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) under state law to remove candidates from the ballot based on that provision. An appeal is now expected to proceed and the matter could well end up in front of the Supreme Court. Another ruling is expected soon out of Colorado.
I quoted from the play “A Man For All Seasons,” when Sir Thomas More is told by his son-in-law that he would “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” ” More responded, “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat ?”
Bollinger , the court divided 5-4 on upholding race admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at Michigan Law School. (On On the same day, the courtruled 6-3 to declare Michigan’s undergraduate admissions unconstitutional in the use of race in Gratz v. In 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger.).
For years, the courts have struggled with this issue with bakers, photographers, and other businesses refusing to create products for same-sex weddings. The court largely punted the case on narrow grounds. Indeed, many on the left have long denounced the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v.
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.
Share The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. He explained that Colorado cannot “force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.” states have similar laws. Roughly half of U.S.
Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace has become the latest jurist to reject the effort to bar former president Donald Trump from the ballot under the novel 14th Amendment theory. While I am a critic of Trump’s speech and actions on that day, I still believe that the the court is completely wrong on the First Amendment. In Brandenburg 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. Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”.
When Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused on religious grounds to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, Sen. When the Supreme Courtruled in the Citizens United case that corporations have free speech rights to participate in politics, Warren was appalled. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) It was always about free speech.
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