Colorado Constitutional Law Statute 
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 19, 2023
Colorado , 600 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. 18–3–602(1)(c), a Colorado statute making it unlawful to “[r]epeatedly. Following Colorado law, the trial court rejected that argument under an objective standard, finding that a reasonable person would consider the messages threatening. In Counterman v.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JANUARY 6, 2025
To eliminate the financial burden that reservists face when called to active duty at pay rates below their federal civilian salaries, Congress enacted the differential pay statute, 5 U.S.C. Eagle County, Colorado : The case involves how to interpret the Courts prior decision in Department of Transportation v. ” In Adams v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
JonathanTurley
JANUARY 27, 2023
Jack Phillip, the Colorado baker who brought the challenge in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has again lost an appeal in Colorado state court. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the refusal to make the cake requested by Autumn Scardina did not constitute free speech.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 25, 2023
Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. As the district court correctly held, Colorado may prohibit speech that promotes unlawful activity, including unlawful discrimination,” the court wrote. “As
JonathanTurley
JULY 27, 2021
Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case involved Charlie Craig and David Mullins who went to the Colorado cake shop of Jack Phillips to order a cake celebrating their earlier marriage in Massachusetts. The Colorado Civil Rights Division referred the case to the state’s Civil Rights Commission, which ruled against Phillips.
SCOTUSBlog
OCTOBER 30, 2022
Bollinger declared an expectation that affirmative action would no longer be necessary in 25 years — a self-imposed expiration date that would be unheard of in any other area of constitutional law. 9, another remedial statute is at risk. In Haaland v. And then there is 303 Creative LLC v.
JonathanTurley
SEPTEMBER 1, 2023
The court found that “the statute is not narrowly tailored and chills the speech of Plaintiffs and adults who wish to access sexual materials. [it] The warning must be accompanied by a national toll-free number for people with mental health disorders. Judge Ezra ruled that “H.B. 1181 is unconstitutional on its face.”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content