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
S. _ (2021), the Supreme Courtruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act barred college student James King’s claims of police brutality. The Court unanimously held that the district court’s dismissal of King’s claims under the FTCA triggered the “judgment bar” in 28 U.S.C. In Brownback v.
The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Decisions in all of the cases are expected before the Court’s term ends in June. The post Affirmative Action Kicked Off Busy Week for SCOTUS appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Supreme Courtruled that public officials may be held liable for their social media activity in certain circumstances. In 2014, Freed updated his Facebook page to reflect his position as city manager of Port Huron, Michigan. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. In Lindke v. Freed , 601 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S.
Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has ruled that race could not be a determinative or major factor in admissions. Bakke, the Courtruled against affirmative action. In Regents of the University of California v. In his plurality decision, then-Justice Lewis F. In the 2003 decision in Grutter v.
As a teenage congressional page, I was one of the faces in that crowd gathered around the court in October 1977 to watch history being made. In Bakke, the courtruled against affirmative action in a fractured decision. Back then, the justices considered two different admissions programs at the University of Michigan.
However, Trask was also key to the arrest of men in the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. In the Michigan case, six men are charged with a conspiracy that involved kidnapping Whitmer but news outlets like BuzzFeed News have raised serious concerns over how much of the conspiracy was directed and facilitated by the FBI.
” In 2014, the Courtruled 6-2 in Schuette v. Bamn , that Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action was constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in 2007 that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
A lower court found the governor’s mandate “has effectively foreclosed the pathway to seeking a religious accommodation that is guaranteed under Title VII.”. Likewise, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this month affirmed such a preliminary injunction against Western Michigan University.
The litigation over the 2020 election seem to be continuing with a ruling this week from MichiganCourt of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law in issuing new rules on absentee balloting before the 2020 election. Here is the opinion: Genetski v.
Yesterday, a Michigan judge was the latest to dismiss the effort to prevent voters from being able to vote for Trump. 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.
”) in Michigan who was ordered to remove this sweater with the popular phrase “Let’s Go, Brandon.” ” We now have a ruling from U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in the Western District of Michigan. We previously discussed the case of a student (known as “D.A.”) Tri County Area Schools.
In an unanimous 6-0 ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court held that her office committed a fatal and inexplicable error in prosecuting nine officials for the Flint water crisis, including former Gov. Rick Snyder.
Previously, MSNBC legal analyst and MichiganLaw Professor Barbara McQuade told MSNBC viewers that Trump could be charged with manslaughter for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. 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.
Bollinger , the court divided 5-4 on upholding race admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at MichiganLaw 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.).
Gretchen Whitmer for her misrepresentation of a state supreme courtruling that she violated the state constitution in her pandemic orders, a false account echoed by NBC’s Chuck Todd. However, this was a legal dispute on the scope of her discretion that was resolved by the state courts.
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. ” The decision comes just days after another defeat in Michigan for advocates of this theory. In Brandenburg v.
Experts like Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe have previously declared Trump’s felonies were shown “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” That speech appears protected by the First Amendment and existing Supreme Court precedent. At 4:17 p.m., In Brandenburg v.
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