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
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.
Colorado's 1876 Constitution is replete with provisions to prohibit corporate welfare, special privileges for government-favored big business, and government debt without voter consent. The protections have been fortified and extended by constitutional amendment, most notably in the 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court heard its final oral arguments of 2024. Below is a brief summary of the legal questions before the Court: Feliciano v. Eagle County, Colorado : The case involves how to interpret the Courts prior decision in Department of Transportation v. Last week, the U.S. ” In Adams v. 4th 1375, 1379 (Fed.
As we wait for the final cases from the Supreme Court this week, Monday was confined to orders of the Court, including the granting and denial of review of cases. That is hardly news on a Court that rejects most petitions for a writ of certiorari. This week, the Mexican Supreme Court decriminalized recreational use of marijuana.
It is the same approach that the President took during the last presidential campaign where he simply refused to state his position on court packing until after the election. Those words from a Democratic political consultant refer to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. In Dobbs 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. With 382 saleswomen and models, the court found that the group was too large. The Court in cases like New York Times v. In Brandenburg v.
Below is my column in USA Today on the remarkably united and non-ideological line of cases handed down by the Supreme Court. As Democratic leaders demand to pack the Court to create a liberal majority, the Court itself appears to be speaking through these cases. Religious freedom upheld in court. For example,?
Share Last term at the Supreme Court teemed with culture-war issues: guns , religion , climate change , COVID vaccines , and of course abortion. In 1978 , 2003 , and 2016 , the court affirmed that universities may consider applicants’ race as part of an effort to foster diversity on campus. Start with affirmative action. In Haaland v.
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 Court ruling.” Supreme Court.
Trump would often savage judges for being Democrats or liberals when there were good-faith legal disagreements over his policies. There are good-faith arguments that these bans contradict Supreme Court cases on the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle &Pistol Association, Inc. Bruen , 142 S.Ct.
When Dobbs was accepts, I wrote that for thirty years as a television and print legal analyst I have annually downplayed claims of commentators that a given case before the Court was a true threat to Roe. The issue of abortion will now return to the states where abortion is expected to remain legal for most women in the country.
While figures like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe have assured the public that Trump is clearly disqualified under the theory, it is based on unsustainable historical and legal interpretations in my view. State Judge James Robert Redford rejected the challenge and found that the courts lack the claimed authority under the theory.
Below is my column in USA Today on the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to reject the disqualification of former president Donald Trump from the 2024 election. Here is the column: “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.” ” Those words from the Supreme Court in its Trump 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.
I believe that the opinion will be set aside, but it is not finality but clarity that we need from the United States Supreme Court. That moment will now be presented to nine justices of the United States Supreme Court after a divided decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
This use of corporations is born out of political and legal convenience. Moreover, the Supreme Court upheld a mandatory state vaccine in 1905, but any federal mandate could face constitutional challenges. None of this, ‘I’m in Colorado … and getting paid like I’m sitting in New York City.’ Sorry, that doesn’t work.”
These efforts show how this theory could place this country on a slippery slope to political chaos if not clearly and finally rejected by the Supreme Court. Of course, he ignores Democratic members who sought to block certification of Republican presidents under the very same law with no factual or legal basis. Scott Perry.
This morning I will be joining the live coverage of the Supreme Court of the arguments over the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment. We can expect the justices to focus on the three main questions before the Court: 1. Is section 3 self-executing?
” Those words from New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay on MSNBC captured the unhinged coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualification of Donald Trump from the 2024 election. So those three Democratic appointees on the Colorado Supreme Court were just more confederate fellow travelers.
” Putting aside the assumption that the executive branch would go along with the massive purge, the suggestion is that neither the Congress nor the courts would move to stop the killing or confinement of all reporters and LGBTQ citizens. Because if we don’t, our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying?”
Below is my column in The Messenger of the Colorado Supreme Court decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. Eleni Kounalakis publicly called upon the Secretary of State to “explore every legal option” to follow the same path as Colorado. In California, Lieutenant Gov.
In states from Colorado to Michigan, Democratic operatives are arguing that Trump must be taken off the ballots because he gave “aid and comfort” to an “insurrection or rebellion.” So long as courts believe that a candidate’s speech is “capable of triggering disqualification,” that speech is unprotected in their view. 6 Capitol riot.
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. I have long been a vocal critic of the theory, which I view as historically and legally unfounded. The Supreme Court nevertheless overturned his conviction.
That world is already taking shape with states crafting their laws reflecting the values of their citizens from Colorado passing a law protecting the right to abortion up to the moment of birth to Louisiana banning all abortions except in limited circumstances. Below is my Hill column on what to expect in a post-Roe world.
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.
When Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused on religious grounds to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, Sen. When the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations have free speech rights to participate in politics, Warren was appalled. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
The tweet was insulting and sophomoric but the action taken by the university is rightfully now a legal matter before the Eastern District of U.S. District Court of Tennessee. The defendants include Malone is suing Chancellor Steven Angle, athletic director Mark Wharton and coach Rusty Wright.
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