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
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring corporations operating within their borders to consent to personal jurisdiction when they register to do business in those states. According to the Court, such laws do not offend the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. In Mallory v.
Supreme Court held that a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to Section 717f(h) of the Natural Gas Act authorizes a private company to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or states. Supreme Court’s Decision.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. Under longstanding constitutionallaw, most laws survive constitutional challenges so long as the government has a “rational basis” for enacting them. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed.
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , 598 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that uncashed MoneyGram checks are governed by the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Check Act (FDA) and should be returned to the state where they were issued. In Delaware v. It was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s first opinion.
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. Pennsylvania is not one of them (which is quite surprising).
Supreme Court held that a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to Section 717f(h) of the Natural Gas Act authorizes a private company to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or states. Supreme Court’s Decision.
Supreme Court held that a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to Section 717f(h) of the Natural Gas Act authorizes a private company to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or states. Supreme Court’s Decision.
Supreme Court heard its first oral arguments of the 2022-2023 Term. The Court also welcomed new Justice Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the bench for her first session of oral arguments. The Court also welcomed new Justice Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the bench for her first session of oral arguments.
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.”
The recent rape of a woman on a train in Pennsylvania has shocked and disgusted the nation, particularly after passengers did nothing to help the woman as she was allegedly attacked by Fiston Ngoy, 35. I am unaware of such a law in Pennsylvania, but these laws are rarely enforced. The language of this Court in Brown v.
Thing is, these days law and the decisions courts hand down are very much like that. People go to one court, don't get what they want so they go to another court asking for, basically, the same thing. In School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp , 374 U.S. Schempp , 374 U.S.
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down a major ruling in favor of the Second Amendment rights of ex-felons. At issue was the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § The federal law makes it “unlawful for any person. 922(g)(1), which bars ex-felons from possession of firearms.
As we wait for the release of the most significant Second Amendment case in over a decade from the Supreme Court (as early as tomorrow), CBS featured Ibram X. States opposed to slavery, like Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, had precursor state constitutional provisions recognizing the right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court has itself highlighted that rationale in its discussions of the history and purpose of the Amendment. The right to bear arms was viewed as a bulwark against oppression of citizens by the government. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”.
at least in court. When the squirrel refused to return to the wild, they adopted him as a pet in their home in rural Pine City , near the Pennsylvania border. The courts will be reluctant to make an exception for individual pets like Peanut. Peanut the Squirrel is back. 30 and seized both Peanut and a raccoon pet named Fred.
For those seeking to portray the Supreme Court as, to use President Joe Biden’s words, “out of whack,” the Court itself continued to disappoint critics this week with another major and nearly unanimous decision in the long-awaited decision in Mahonoy v. The Court says that her comments were protected.
Supreme Court. However, it is not the first time that a landmark abortion decision was made public before the Court announced its decision. However, in defending its controversial abortion law, the State of Mississippi has asked the Court to overturn its prior decisions in Roe v. Leak of Draft Decision in Dobbs v.
King in a paper published in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of ConstitutionalLaw. percent of federal criminal cases in 1962, but just over 2 percent in 2015, effectively turning trials into what former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy called “a system of pleas, not a system of trials.”
A University of Pennsylvania professor faced calls for his termination when he questioned an anti-racism statement. The complaint should be enough to get through a motion to dismiss unless the court deems the resignation to be determinative.
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.” Cristina M.
San Francisco Regional Director Jill Coffman declared that the company is violating the rights of workers in 10 different states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Washington, Indiana, and California). The Supreme Court has pushed back on federal agencies trying to regulate speech.
Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. States opposed to slavery, like Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, had precursor state constitutional provisions recognizing the right to bear arms. In his famous 1770 defense of Capt.
This brings us back to the model law. The laws passed in states l ike Pennsylvania are not CRT prohibitions but required posting of teaching materials, syllabi, and scholastic achievement scores online. Yet, school districts and teachers have opposed such FOIA requests in court.
That included most famously the Pennsylvania long rifle that was the bane of the existence of the British. Courts likely would press the Biden administration on why it is seeking to ban this model when other higher-caliber weapons are sold. Rifles did exist in the Revolution. have proven to be the gun lobby’s greatest asset.
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.
Those words from actress Jane Greer, the ultimate femme fatale in the 1947 film-noir classic, “Out of the Past,” could well have been written above the caption of the Biden administration’s brief this week before the Supreme Court, seeking to enjoin the Texas abortion law. The Dobbs case is due to be argued in December.
Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman and other Democrats have filed a federal lawsuit to strike down parts of Pennsylvania’s election law after the state Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots with incorrect dates or no dates should not be counted.Fetterman is challenging the state law on constitutional and federal statutes.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday refused to block orders by courts in North Carolina and Pennsylvania that threw out the congressional maps enacted by the states’ Republican legislatures and replaced them with maps drawn by the trial courts. 23, the state supreme court refused to put the expert’s map on hold.
Below is my column in the Hill on the call by the Biden White House and many in the media to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court not to enjoin the new abortion law in Texas. Sotomayor encouraged advocates not to wait for any decision of the Court.
We previously discussed Fetterman’s recent effort to enlist the firm of controversial Clinton lawyer Marc Elias to get a federal court to strike down a Pennsylvania election provision. The federal officials would have the edge in such a court challenge. Now Florida Gov.
In a Washington Post column, University of Pennsylvania professor Victor Pickard insisted that we should “reexamine our assumptions about the relationships between the First Amendment, content regulation, corporate power and any hope for a democratic future.” Indeed, limiting such rights is now framed as a democratic virtue.
Share At the end of each year, SCOTUSblog remembers some of the people whose lives and work left an imprint on the Supreme Court. From legendary lawyers to lesser-known activists, journalists, and plaintiffs, the following individuals who died in 2022 all shaped the court and the law in their own ways. David Beckwith (Oct.
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.”.
It is in fact what many pro-choice advocates have always wanted Roe to be but have been unsuccessful in establishing through the court system. The WHPA would dramatically expand Roe and its successor case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. There are legitimate objections to some of these laws.
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.
District Court of Tennessee. For example, Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe (who President Biden just put on the Supreme Court commission) has routinely used juvenile and vulgar attacks against academics and political figures with opposing views, including myself.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2023-24 term, involving educational benefits for veterans and a rare appearance by the 16th Amendment. A Washington state couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore, went to federal court to challenge the tax. In Moore v. In the second case, Rudisill v.
District Court Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the challenge filed by the Trump campaign to stop the certification of the vote in Pennsylvania. Notably, the court did find that the “Individual Plaintiffs have adequately pled that their votes were denied.” On Saturday, U.S.
From the prosecution of Bill Cosby to a federal lawsuit against Georgia, courts are dealing with cases where government lawyers repeat the same implausible claims with the same unconvincing results. In Pennsylvania, another prosecutor insisted that politics had nothing to do with a case. The Cosby ruling. In Cosby v.
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. The filing against Perry came the same day Pennsylvania Democratic state Sen. Scott Perry. This is also being played out in state races.
Bundy of Roselle Park Municipal Court that she must remove the offending signs. ” In 1971, the Supreme Court handed down Cohen v. Indeed, the Supreme Court just handed down a ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. The Court has been mocked for its ham-handed efforts to define pornography.
It is important to note that Republicans have also had courts rule against them in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania). The court found that, in their 2021 Congressional Plan, the Democrats not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses.
It is same position taken recently before the Supreme Court by Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who called a legal challenge to the election “seditious.” Of course, the use of the courts or Congress to raise such objections is the very opposite of sedition, which seeks to overthrow the legal system.
The Trump Administration believes that this is fight worth either winning or even losing in the courts. That makes this a perfect wedge issue either as a court fight or, if unsuccessful, a fight for a constitutional amendment. Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? A few years later, inMinor v.
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