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 US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear a case where a Christian ministry sued the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) over being labeled a hate group. SPLC asked the court to review its 1964 decision in NewYork Times Co. ” Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s denial of certiorari.
“California’s Shifting Relationship With the Supreme Court: A conversation with the constitutionallaw expert Erwin Chemerinsky about what Californians can expect from a conservative court.” ” Jill Cowan has this discussion online at The NewYork Times.
While it has received little coverage in the mainstream media, the conservative group Project Veritas won a major victory against the NewYork Times this week in a defamation case with potentially wide reach. Notably, this follows another significant loss by the NewYork Times to Sarah Palin last year. seven times.
As an academic and a legal commentator, I have sometimes disagreed with the United States Supreme Court, but I often stress the good-faith differences in how certain rights or protections are interpreted. New London. There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent.
“Let’s Not Bring Back Jail for Swearing”: Online at The NewYork Times, law professors Jacob D. Schafer have a guest essay that begins, “With its new term starting this month, the Supreme Court will likely confront calls to upend constitutionallaw yet again. Charles and Matthew L.
Share This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in NewYork State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther chair in American history at Fordham University and adjunct professor of law at Fordham Law School. Bruen does mark a new low for the court.
Supreme Court will take on its first free speech case this month. Paxton , involves the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is harmful to minors to verify the age of every user before permitting access. NewYork , 390 U.S. NewYork , 390 U.S.
There is an interesting First Amendment case brewing in NewYork after an appellate ruled that a mother identified as Christie could lose custody of her daughter unless she removes a rock with a small confederate flag image on it in the driveway. The lower court rejected demands for sole custody of both parents.
We have previously discussed how NewYork has proven the gift that keeps on giving for gun rights advocates. NewYork Democrats have passed a series of laws that led to catastrophic losses in federal court, including the recent major ruling in in NewYork State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.
As predicted , the Supreme Court handed down a momentous opinion in favor of Second Amendment rights today in NewYork State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)
I have previously written about how NewYork has proven time and time again as the gift that keeps on giving for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun-rights groups. NewYork Democrats continue to pass laws that are virtually guaranteed to be struck down and further reinforce Second Amendment rights.
Below is my column in the Hill on the makings of a blockbuster case in NewYork State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. Bruen, the first major gun rights case before the Supreme Court in ten years. The court will soon take up NewYork State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)
I previously wrote about the latest NewYork gun law passed after the Court’s ruling in NewYork State Rifle and Pistol Association v. NewYork Democratic Gov. Once again, it is baffling why NewYork voters continue to enable this type of leadership. It did not take long.
Much has been made of the decision of the Supreme Court to reject a request for an injunction of a NewYorklaw limiting gun rights. NewYork Attorney General Letitia James went public to celebrate the “decision” while saying that the “gun safety laws help save lives, and keep our state safer.”
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases this week, with the Second Amendment taking center stage. In the wake of the country’s most recent mass shooting, the justices considered a case that could overturn a federal gun law. The case, United States v. Bruen , 597 U.S. _ (2022). 1681 et seq.,
I have previously written how NewYork has been the gift that keeps on giving for the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. The latest is a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit striking down key provisions of the law passed after the Bruen decision. NewYork Democratic Gov.
We have been discussing ( here and here and here ) the Supreme Court challenge in NewYork State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. Bruen , the first Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over ten years. City of Chicago , the court ruled that this right applied against the states. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in person for the first time in more than 18 months. Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Wooden v. Davenport: This case asks the Court to determine the correct standard for harmless-error review of state convictions in federal habeas proceedings. Last week, the U.S.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will take up arguably the oldest and most controversial right in our history. NewYork State Rifle Association v. Bruen is the first major gun rights case in over ten years to come before the Supreme Court and it has the makings of a major gun rights victory in the making.
As various states move to pass controversial new gun control laws after the decision in NewYork State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, one such law was just enjoined by a federal court in Colorado. and Wyoming, correctly found that the law clearly ran afoul of the controlling precedent.
It is the latest loss of the city, which continues to pass legislation that runs afoul of governing Supreme Court precedent. Heller , the Supreme Court in 2008 ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right. City of Chicago , the court ruled that this right applied against the states. In District of Columbia v.
Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in its first significant Second Amendment case in two years. Rahimi, will decide whether a federal law banning the possession of guns by individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional. The case, United States v.
NewYork , 595 U. Supreme Court held that the trial court’s admission—over a criminal defendant’s objection—of the plea allocution transcript of an unavailable witness violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court’s vote was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the declaration of a gun violence emergency by NewYork Gov. The centerpiece of Cuomo’s plan is a newlaw to allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers under a nuisance theory. It has failed repeatedly in various states, including NewYork.
Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a California animal welfare law that requires pork sold in the state to come from humanely raised pigs. According to the Court, the law did not violate the dormant commerce clause in regulating the pork industry outside California. We decline that invitation.
Supreme Court held that the authority of a court to imply a cause of action under Bivens v. While the Court did not overrule Bivens , it did emphasize that recognizing a Bivens cause of action is “a disfavored judicial activity.”. The District Court declined to extend Bivens as re- quested, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Supreme Court ruled that the National Rifle Association (NRA) may continue its First Amendment lawsuit against the former head of NewYork’s Department of Financial Services. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed its holding in Bantam Books, Inc. In National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo , 602 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S.
He is the author of six books about the law, including American Justice 2016: The Political Supreme Court and The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. Professors at the event reflected on opinions about administrative law, free speech, patents, and other topics. Seattle School District No.
This week, NewYork became the latest city to grant voting rights to non-residents – a move that could give voting rights to 800,000 non-citizens in city elections. There are roughly a dozen such cities granting voting rights across the country but there are major questions over the legality of this measure in NewYork.
After triggering a court fight, Grisham backed down and scaled down her order to ban concealed weapons in parks and playgrounds. Now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected her bid to lift that injunction in a key decision on appeal. She is still doubling down and increasing the losses in the courts.
Supreme Court continues to add high-profile gun rights cases to its docket. One of the new cases involves a First Amendment challenge brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the free speech claims , determining that Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity.
Below is my column on the growing attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court after the decision to overturn Roe v. As the Court ends its term, Democratic leaders are calling for removing justices, packing the Court, and other extreme reactions to the decision in Dobbs v. issued a warning to the Supreme Court: Reaffirm Roe v.
There is an interesting ruling this week out of NewYork where a federal court has ruled in favor of a conservative student group alleging that the State University of NewYork at Binghamton has engaged in a pattern of censorship of conservative speakers and events. We previously discussed the controversy.
The Florida case has been referred to that state’s highest court for an advisory ruling on the state of the state’s law on the issue, and earlier this week, the same thing happened in California. A decision on this issue in any state is binding only in that state. A decision on this issue in any state is binding only in that state.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has handed down a major ruling in Worth v. The opinion by Judge Duane Benton upholds a lower court in striking down a Minnesota law limiting gun permits for persons 21 years old. They are clearly “people” under the Constitution.
Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. The District Court denied Rahimi’s motion to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. In light of Bruen , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. In United States v.
Supreme Court recently returned to the bench for its February sitting. The issues before the Court involved Native American law and immigration. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Denezpi v. Litigation about the Rule ensued, and the Supreme Court granted review of the Second Circuit’s opinion.
Wilson, Opening RemarksSenate Confirmation Hearing, April 17, 2023 At Columbia Law SchoolIn previous posts in this series, we reviewed Rowan Wilson's eventual selection to sit on NewYork's highest court in 2016 by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, and his nomination to be Chief Judge this past April by
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in NewYork Times v. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. Obviously, truth remains a defense.
Supreme Court held that to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. In January 2014, petitioner Larry Thompson was living with his fiancée (now wife) and their newborn baby in an apartment in Brooklyn, NewYork. Supreme Court’s Decision.
Some have called for the change to increase diversity in the schools, particularly after California voters refused to change the long ban on affirmative action in education under state law. Here is the column: The Supreme Court will decide early next month whether to take a new case on the use of race in college admissions.
The use of the headdress could be treated by a court as opinion since many denounce such images as cultural appropriation. What constitutes racist imagery is a matter of public debate and Phillips can argue that this is obviously just his opinion. In NewYork Times v. In 1967, the Supreme Court handed down Time, Inc.
There is an interesting defamation case out of NewYork in which the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (NOI) against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and individual defendants Jonathan Greenblatt, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Rabbi Abraham Cooper. In Farrakhan v.
Free speech has always held a precarious position in Australia which does not have an equivalent to the First Amendment in guaranteeing free speech as a constitutional right. Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech.
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