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
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether the Constitution permits state courts to play a role in congressional redistricting and whether plaintiffs can hold cities liable when city employees violate federal protections for people with disabilities.
Share So many books cover the work of the Supreme Court that the Journal of Supreme Court History can review several of them in each issue. The overwhelming majority of those books, though, analyze the work of the court interpreting the Constitution. But this book has much more to offer the student of the modern court.
Supreme Court begins its new term next month, the justices will hear two potential landmark cases involving affirmative action. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Issues Before the Supreme Court. The issues before the Court in Students for Fair Admissions v.
Supreme Court ruled 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.
S. _ (2021), the Supreme Court ruled 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. King ,592 U.
Supreme Court had a busy week, hearing oral arguments in five cases. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Cruz v.
Supreme Court held that a deaf student seeking compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.
Supreme Court struck down the college admissions programs of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The Court held that the raced-based policies violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. In both cases, the lower courts upheld the admissions policies, and Students for Fair Admissions appealed.
Here is the column: Forty-four years ago, the Supreme Court was the center of a raging protest by thousands as the justices took up the case of Regents of the University of California 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.
There is an interesting debate unfolding around the country in the aftermath of the Supreme Court barring the use of race in college admissions. For decades, colleges and universities have sought to downplay the weight given to race in court while insisting that it was one of a number of factors used in maintaining diversity.
When I was clerking in Louisiana after graduating law school, there was story of a rather notorious local judge asking counsel in a criminal case if he was ready to present the case of the defendant. That law has been treated as dormant given the 1973 decision in Roe v. According to The Detroit News , Gleicher issued a statement that.
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.
Notably, this sensitive subject has led to some sharp words even on the Supreme Court. ” In 2014, the Court ruled 6-2 in Schuette v. Bamn , that Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action was constitutional. However, Lipson and LeFevre are not likely to raise the matter.
The problem is that the courts already recognize some religious exemption arguments. Those arguments are based on both the constitutional protection of religious values but also laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. There is a move in many states to refuse to allow such exemptions, but courts have pushed back.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows lost another attempt to force review of her disqualification “decision” before the United States Supreme Court hears arguments on the issue on Feb. The Maine Supreme Court declined to review the matter. A year after the riot , Bellows was still denouncing the “violent insurrection.”
Share President Joe Biden will issue an executive order to create a commission to study potential reforms to the Supreme Court, the White House announced on Friday. In its statement, the White House indicated that the commission will be a bipartisan one, made up of experts “on the Court and the Court reform debate.” Guy-Uriel E.
The decision of the Supreme Court to end the use of race in college admissions was not unexpected. Yet, President Joe Biden seemed to go into full attack mode and actually claimed that the Court gutted the constitutional guarantee that “all men and women are created equal.”
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. Benson, No.
This movement is expanding and accelerating in its effort to curtail the right that Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called “indispensable” to our constitutional system. University of MichiganLaw Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has written how dangerous free speech is for the nation.
In a letter, the court found a basis for a temporary injunction to allow Cross to return until Dec. 31 pending further orders of the court. Accordingly, “[T]he Court has found … that the disruption relied upon was insufficient.” Indeed, if Cross is fired, such questions could be soon before a court.
Yesterday, a Michigan judge was the latest to dismiss the effort to prevent voters from being able to vote for Trump. State Judge James Robert Redford rejected the challenge and found that the courts lack the claimed authority under the theory. I have previously addressed the constitutional basis for this claim.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court blocked Democratic Gov. It is similar to a ruling rejecting orders by Michigan Gov. However, in dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote that the court should allow for a more fluid reading in light of the pandemic: “This is no run-of-the-mill case. Gretchen Whitmer. Act 109, § 340L.
Now, a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens. Not surprisingly, the state of California is leading the effort to get the Supreme Court to reverse a decision enjoining the government from censorship efforts.
”) in Michigan who was ordered to remove this sweater with the popular phrase “Let’s Go, Brandon.” District Judge Paul Maloney in the Western District of Michigan. Courts too have recognized how seemingly innocuous phrases may convey profane messages. ” We now have a ruling from U.S.
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.
Wade after the Supreme Court refused to enjoin a Texas anti-abortion law in an emergency filing. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced that the Supreme Court just “overturned” Roe in the order. Casey , laws were routinely struck down if they barred abortions “viability” round 24 weeks of pregnancy. Now breathe.
While the Supreme Court has allowed limited exceptions, it does not bestow on the government the open right to strip protection of speech because it is deemed “hateful.” Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct.
Here is the column: Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has overturned long-standing precedents, as it did recently in Dobbs v. As intended by the court , much of the debate over abortion will now fall on citizens to decide in the democratic process. Michigan Gov. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Walz proceeded to quote the line from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said you do not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. interjected with the fire-in-a-theater question to say such censorship is needed and constitutional. It also is fundamentally wrong. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y.,
This month, the Coolidge Reagan Foundation has called upon the Michigan bar to investigate and sanction Rep. Backer insists that Tlaib “clearly violated” the Michigan bar’s ethics code due to her inflammatory remarks. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., over her comments on Gaza and Israel.
With 382 saleswomen and models, the court found that the group was too large. However, with the 25 salesmen, the court found that an action could be maintained. I was, therefore, gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church.
A professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, has been suspended after posting threatening statements on social media posts that suggested that people would be justified in killing speakers who hold opposing views on issues like transgender policies. Wayne State University President M.
Below is my column in the Hill on the Supreme Court accepting two cases dealing with racial preferences in college admissions. Here is the column: Last year, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s “train whistle” docket with cases on abortion, guns, immigration, and other issues barreling down the track. Second, courts change.
the outcomes in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were worryingly close.”. He previously argued for packing the Court with “race-conscious justices.” ” I have been a critic of court packing schemes raised after the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. t is ours, too. It must be ours.”.
Now a Harvard poll reaffirms earlier polling that shows most Americans embrace views closer to Mississippi than Michigan on abortion. Indeed, while Democratic leaders denounced the Mississippi law setting a 15-week limit on abortion, 72 percent of those polled support that limit. Supreme Court overturned Roe v.
She was alluding to the 2021 Capitol riot, but she and her party are also attacking the foundations of our democracy: the Supreme Court and the freedom of speech. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats. said in 2021, explaining her support for a court-packing bill. “I
It appears, however, that Eve’s defense had greater success in Michigan this week after a jury failed to convict a single member of the alleged conspiracy to kidnap and execute Gov. That collapse is now complete after a Michigan jury acquitted two of the four men tried for the conspiracy and then hung on the other two.
Below is my column in The Hill on the start of the new Term for the Supreme Court. ” Does that make the three liberals justices voting together on the Court the “judicial arm of the Democratic Party”? .” That is, of course, manifestly true for the highest court in the land. I was wrong. Of course not.
Gretchen Whitmer for her misrepresentation of a state supreme court ruling that she violated the state constitution in her pandemic orders, a false account echoed by NBC’s Chuck Todd. Whitmer did violate the Constitution, as have other public officials in other states. I have been highly critical of Gov.
For three days, Americans watched the Senate Judiciary Committee hold what were called confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. The question of being “hard” or “soft” on crime should not be an issue that defines the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice. The hearings barely lived up to the name.
Now, the Michigan Attorney General and others are suggesting that Republicans who oppose certification or even meet with President Donald Trump on the issue could be criminally investigated or charged. Some of these questions are being addressed in the courts. And yet, it’s back.
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. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman and Ritchie Torres and “Squad” members Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Scott Perry. Cori Bush (D-Mo.)
Most recently, the left expressed nothing short of horror that Judge Cannon allowed the Trump team to argue a point of constitutionallaw in a hearing. Thus far, they have been unsuccessful, but none have gone to the Supreme Court. That’s been addressed in multiple courts. It is a baffling lecture. Cannon’s colleagues.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, six Supreme Court justices noted that the nation was grappling with this deeply divisive issue in 1973 but that “Roe abruptly ended that political process.” The court has now declared that the future of abortion will rest with 330 million Americans rather than nine justices. How much has changed.
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