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 The Supreme Court on Monday refused to block orders by courts in NorthCarolina and Pennsylvania that threw out the congressional maps enacted by the states’ Republican legislatures and replaced them with maps drawn by the trial courts. The NorthCarolina case.
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.
An opinion out of NorthCarolina is raising very serious concern over free speech this week. Yet the NorthCarolina Supreme Court has now upheld the sentence without any opinion. There is no debate that Eldridge was wrong to record the proceedings and that the court was within the law in holding him in contempt.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has delivered a body blow to free speech as well as academic freedom in a ruling against a statistics professor at NorthCarolina State University. In that way, the court avoids the necessity of applying the balancing test under Pickering v. Board of Education.
Constitutionallaw took center stage in many U.S. Supreme Court and the New Jersey Supreme Court cases decided in 2023. At the nation’s highest Court, the six-member conservative majority continued its trend of issuing transformative decisions, most notably in its landmark decision effectively ending affirmative action.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. This week’s conference represents the Supreme Court’s last currently scheduled conference. Last November, the NorthCarolina legislature enacted a new map for congressional elections in response to the 2020 U.S.
Share At last Thursday’s conference, the justices considered several high-profile petitions for review, involving issues like New York’s vaccine mandate for health-care workers, whether to overrule the court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. But the justices on Monday turned down that request.
In the wake of its controversial 2021 term, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court when the justices return to the bench in October. Harper , an elections case out of NorthCarolina that involves how much oversight state courts may exercise over federal elections. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. I § 4, cl.
Supreme Court begins its new term next month, the justices will hear two potential landmark cases involving affirmative action. University of NorthCarolina , involve the use of race in the undergraduate admissions process. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v.
Many observers are waiting for the United States Supreme Court to decide whether to delve again into college admissions with a pending case out of Harvard University in which Asian and white students claim discrimination. ” The case will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Loretta C.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases last week, it was missing hospitalized Justice Clarence Thomas. The issues before the Court included challenges to NorthCarolina’s voter ID law, the waiver of arbitration agreements, and international child custody disputes. Concepcion , 563 U.S. Luxshare, Ltd.:
University of NorthCarolina , the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the college admissions programs of Harvard University and the University of NorthCarolina. The Court held that the raced-based policies violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. In Students for Fair Admissions v.
University of NorthCarolina. 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. In Bakke, the court ruled against affirmative action in a fractured decision.
Now, the United States Supreme Court has denied a request for emergency intervention in the case. The Court may still review the admissions changes and three justices are already signaling that they would like to do so. There is a general preference for regular order in allowing lower courts to be heard.
Supreme Court had a busy week, hearing oral arguments in five cases. University of NorthCarolina, which are poised to determine the role of affirmative action in college admissions. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Harvard College and SFFA v. 306 (2003).
Those efforts received a boost recently from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which rejected the free speech claims of NorthCarolina State University Professor Stephen Porter. Board of Trustees of NorthCarolina State University is pending before the Supreme Court for possible review.
I am happy to announce the publication of my latest law review article, The Unfinished Masterpiece: Compulsion and the Evolving Jurisprudence Over Free Speec h. The work not only discusses the recent 303 Creative ruling of the Supreme Court, but an important case now pending before the Court for possible review, Porter v.
Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Counterman v. 723 (2015), but ultimately decided the case before reaching the constitutional issue. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court acknowledged that “[s]ocial media magnify the potential for a speaker’s innocent words to be misunderstood.”
2] Mark Moore, Court Upholds Bribery Conviction of Chinese Exec Patrick Ho Linked to Hunter Biden , N.Y. This hearing returned the impeachment process to a type of regular order in reserving judgment until all of the evidence could be acquired by the three committees.
Bill Cosby is a free man after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the conviction that sent him to jail roughly three years ago to serve 3-10 years for sexual assault. He proceeded to incriminate himself in what the Court said was a bait-and-switch. The court yielded to prosecutorial demands that were facially unconstitutional.
appeared first on Above the Law. ‘What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, or ever rarer, the thing that might be worth saying.’ - Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations The post Hey Judge, I Thought That State-Compelled Speech Was A No No?
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the use of race criteria in the admission of students in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of NorthCarolina. For decades, universities have avoided the type of outright quota the court held unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v.
Notably, this week, the board defended its policy before the Supreme Court by insisting that it was not “race balancing” and that the new policy is entirely “race neutral.” The TJ case is important not just to constitutional but educational standards in America.
In the name of democracy, these Democrats have demanded that courts prevent voters from being able to vote for incumbent members. It has been rejected repeatedly in the courts. The latest such ruling comes from the Arizona Supreme Court which ruled that Democrats could not prevent Rep. The court case is Thomas Hansen v.
.” The question is whether such race-based leave would be constitutional. The Supreme Court has required satisfaction of the strict scrutiny test in race-based programs but has not (thus far) ruled out any consideration of race in admissions or other benefits. That could trigger a challenge by non-Black faculty.
She was also left off the starters in the next game against NorthCarolina. The complaint should be enough to get through a motion to dismiss unless the court deems the resignation to be determinative. She was pulled as a starters in the next game against Clemson and again Adair allegedly berated her publicly.
We recently discussed the case of University of NorthCarolinalaw student Sagar Sharma, a student of color, who faced a recall election as the first-year class co-president. In a real first amendment case, a court would have little patience with such a standard as a limitation on free speech. DeBartolo Corp.
Share With all eyes focused on the nomination hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, selected by President Joe Biden to succeed the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court was back to work on Monday morning. The legislators then came to the Supreme Court, which agreed last fall to weigh in. In Berger v. But the U.S.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two potential blockbuster cases. Harper , the Court considered a contentious elections law dispute involving how much oversight state courts may exercise over federal elections. Last week, the U.S. The first, 303 Creative LLC v. Meanwhile, in Moore v.
The last week’s historic decisions from the Supreme Court led to an array of factual objections from critics. That is not the case with a mathematical challenge raised to the dissent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the NorthCarolina affirmative action case. Those mistakes, however, had little impact on the reasoning.
A federal court found a non-racial purpose in the law to require a majority-supported election as a “bedrock ingredient of democratic political philosophy.” That part of the opinion was upheld by the appellate court , though the court was reversed on other grounds.
Law schools have been accused of “gaming the system” on admissions criteria for years to circumvent federal law and governing cases on the use of race or gender. Those concerns only increased after the Supreme Court categorically rejected the use of race in admissions in Students for Fair Admissions Inc.
It was always doubtful that a law school would take the unprecedented step of barring a sitting Supreme Court justice. The problem is that most targets of these campaigns have neither the status nor the day job of a Supreme Court justice. Here is the column: Clarence Thomas last week became cancel culture’s latest target.
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. He repeatedly had to go to court to defend his right to continue to teach.
Today I have the honor of speaking to the judges and lawyers in the 2022 Ohio Judicial conference on the Supreme Court in Columbus, Ohio. I will be discussing the last year of cases and controversies for the Court from leaks to threats as well as the recent and upcoming decisions. Students for Fair Admissions v.
Share When the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. The Dobbs majority opinion was the third-longest Supreme Court opinion since the beginning of the 1946-47 term, according to our analysis. Both trends could further diminish perceptions of a collegial and productive court.
Shapiro has elected to leave Georgetown to take a position with the Manhattan Institute given the lack of support for his right to speak freely at the law school. Shapiro is under fire for his opposition to the pledge by President Joe Biden to limit consideration for the next Supreme Court nominee to a black female.
Share Last term at the Supreme Court teemed with culture-war issues: guns , religion , climate change , COVID vaccines , and of course abortion. In 1978 , 2003 , and 2016 , the court affirmed that universities may consider applicants’ race as part of an effort to foster diversity on campus. Start with affirmative action. In Haaland v.
The keynote address will cover “ Emerging Cases and Controversies Before the Roberts Supreme Court.” ” It is a particular privilege to address the conference on Constitution Day. We are experiencing a crisis of faith in our Constitution, including attacks on the Court and individual justices.
The decision of the Supreme Court to end the use of race in college admissions was not unexpected. Indeed, the rulings in cases involving Harvard and the University of NorthCarolina ended decades of muddled 5-4 decisions. In barring the use of race in admissions, the Court believed that it was protecting that very guarantee.
On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a potentially blockbuster religion clause case in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. The lower court ruled that such funding of a religious school is unconstitutional. He also opposed review by the Supreme Court, warning thatthe school intends to serve the evangelizing mission of the church.
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. University of NorthCarolina.
A professor at the University of NorthCarolina recently sent me an article on a “free speech event” held at the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy as part of the University’s 13th First Amendment Day celebration. Moreover, if there is defamation, the courts allow for stripping away anonymity in many cases.
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.
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