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
The Supreme Court’s January sitting started off with the late addition of two cases challenging vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden Administration. The central issue before the Court in both cases is whether the vaccine mandates should be allowed to move forward while the legal challenges work their way through the lower courts.
support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.” Recently, a court found that the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts constituted “ the most massive attack against free speech in United States history. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. Those words by Chief U.S.
Numerous groups attack the viability standard that the court adopted in Roe v. Many amici focus on the principle of stare decisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case. They say Roe and Casey are not worthy of the deference that the court typically affords to its prior decisions. The viability framework.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas delivered a blow to the Biden Administration on Friday by ordering the reinstatement of the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program, also known as the “Remain-in-Mexico” policy. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S.,
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.
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