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 Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read: Supreme Court can let West Point keep affirmative action (Noah Feldman, Washington Post) I teach constitutionallaw.
Share On Thursday, the Supreme Court held that a federal prisoner cannot raise a claim of legal innocence if he has already challenged his conviction – even if that claim was unavailable at the time he filed his challenge. The court’s decision in Jones v. Nearly two decades later, the Supreme Court decided in Rehaif v.
According to law professors Guha Krishnamurthi of the University of Oklahoma College of law and Peter Salib of the University of Houston Law Center, this public concern is warranted. Guha Krishnamurthi is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
Supreme Court recently sided with police in two excessive force lawsuits asserting qualified immunity. The Court decided the cases summarily, without briefing or oral arguments. The District Court granted summary judgment to Rivas-Villegas, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Qualified Immunity.
Supreme Court returns to the bench on October 7, 2024. The term refers guns that are assembled in parts and, therefore, difficult to trace by law enforcement due to their lack serial numbers and transfer records. . Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Royal Canin U.S.A., 1983 in state court.”
Supreme Court held that the trademark infringement provisions of the Lanham Act do not apply extraterritorially, but rather extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. The District Court also entered a permanent injunction preventing Abitron from using Hetronic’s marks anywhere in the world.
The calls to boycott Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in states like Texas, Florida ,and Oklahoma will give citizens the common choice between something Half Baked and the American Dream. ” An actual state boycott could raise serious constitutional questions in interfering with interstate commerce and free speech.
The Oklahoma House of Representatives voted Tuesday to enact a law that makes it a felony to perform or attempt to perform an abortion, except to save the life of the pregnant woman in a medical emergency. Since the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the Texas law in December 2021 in Whole Women’s Health v.
Share Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. God Has No Place in Supreme Court Opinions (Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times). God Has No Place in Supreme Court Opinions (Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times). His Response?
Supreme Court has concluded its oral arguments for the October 2021 Term. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Nance v. On remand, the lower courts found that Kennedy lost his job solely because of his religious expression. In Bucklew v. Precythe , 139 S. ” Petitioner filed suit under 42 U.S.C.
It appears that Anthony Comstock is having something of a revival in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Senate Bill 1976 would also make posing or exhibiting such images. Supreme Court ruled against a provision of federal law that banned computer simulations and virtual pornography under the first amendment. In a 2002 ruling, the U.S.
We recently discussed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit striking down a ban on gun ownership by individuals accused of domestic abuse. Harrison was arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma, in May 2022 after a traffic stop where police found a loaded revolver as well as marijuana. Under 18 U.S.C. §
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. Constitution. Here is the lower court decision: St. However, there is a catch. Isidore Opinion
But the Convention came together to declare that equal rights, including rights for women and LGBTQ+ people, should be a fundamental value of American constitutionallaw. In my second dispatch from this Convention, I spoke with the amendment’s sponsor, Crispin South, a Choctaw law student at ASU and a delegate representing Oklahoma.
However, the moment that most struck me was an exchange between Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Maine Chief Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub where Taub appeared to acknowledge that legislatures have every right to ban critical race theory (CRT) from being taught.
The President and the Court appear in agreement. Here is the column: “Consider the challenge accepted, Court.” ” Ironically, it was the only part of the president’s remarks that is consistent with what the court actually said in its decision in Dobbs v. .” Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Here is the column: After the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. There are obviously good-faith objections to the Dobbs decisions on the underlying constitutional interpretation. However, critics have created a parade of horribles that extend beyond that opinion, including arguments expressly rejected by the Court.
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.
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