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
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a major parental rights case in Mahmoud v. They lost in the lower courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a podcast, Weingarten explained , “We know, for example, what Texas would do. The parents cited Wisconsin v.
The post Texas Rationalized Killing Poor People With Water Saws By Using Creationism. appeared first on Above the Law. The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'' The Establishment Clause Is Done.
Supreme Court will take on its first free speech case this month. Paxton , involves the constitutionality of a Texaslaw 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. The case, Free Speech Coalition v. ACLU , 542 U.S.
Last night, the Texas Supreme Court lifted the temporary restraining order. The earlier discussion noted that the authority of the Texas legislature to compel the appearance of members (which is the same as the provision in U.S. Constitution) is expressly stated in the state constitution. Ted Cruz (R.,
Thomas has taken law-office history to a new low, even for the Supreme Court, a body whose special brand of “law chambers history” has prompted multiple critiques and been a source of amusement for generations of scholars and court watchers. Bruen does mark a new low for the court.
In a demonstrably meritless lawsuit, 22 Texas House Democrats sued some of the state’s top Republican leaders in federal court in Austin over the efforts to bring them home for a special legislative session. Philip Cortez , D-San Antonio, after he returned to the Texas. Phelan signed a civil warrant for Rep. James White.
Share In 2018, California voters approved Proposition 12, a ballot initiative that its supporters describe as the country’s strongest law to protect farm animals. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a challenge to the constitutionality of the law.
Supreme Court next term. The justices recently granted certiorari in two cases challenging state laws that restrict social media companies’ ability to moderate content on their platforms. The key issue before the Court is whether the Texas and Florida laws violate the First Amendment. Meanwhile, the Texaslaw, H.B.
Supreme Court upheld a city ordinance that imposes criminal penalties on homeless sleeping outside. According to the Court, the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Boise , No.
Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a case that is expected to define the scope of federal identity theft law. The specific issue before the Court in Dubin v. David Dubin was the managing partner of PARTS, a psychology practice in Texas. David Dubin was the managing partner of PARTS, a psychology practice in Texas.
Supreme Court held that a district court does not have the discretion to deny or reduce the costs awarded by an appellate court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39. On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that the OTCs had not underpaid on their taxes. Supreme Court’s Decision. Hotels.com, L.P.,
Supreme Court tackled some of the most closely watched cases of the term. In challenging the law, TikTok and its users argue that the PAFACAA violates the First Amendment and constitutes an unlawful bill of attainder under Article I. The Court also considered five other cases. Upon returning from break, the U.S.
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. Texas : The case involves gaming activities on Native American land in Texas. Texas , 36 F.3d
The child is of mixed races and the court has deemed the display as inimical to the best interests of the child. The family court judge did not make such a determination and the ruling raises a very serious free speech concern over conditioning a right to custody on the curtailment of political speech.
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.
We previously discussed concerns over free speech on the campus of the University of North Texas, including the canceling of an event on child gender transitioning. Professor Hiers sued the Board of Regents of the University of North Texas after it told him that it did not renew his contract due to his criticism of the policy.
Supreme Court held that plaintiffs are not required to produce specific comparator evidence to demonstrate that they fall within the Nieves exception in retaliatory arrest cases. Facts of the Case In 2019, Sylvia Gonzalez ran for a seat on the city council of Castle Hills, a small town in southern Texas. In Gonzalez v. 2024), the U.S.
Supreme Court confirmed that social-media platforms have First Amendment interests in exercising editorial discretion over the third-party content. Facts of the Case In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. NetChoice and NetChoice v.
Supreme Court held oral arguments in six cases to end its February sitting. A pair of cases challenging Texas and Florida’s controversial social media laws took center stage. In the Florida case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that S.B. Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Cantero v.
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. MoneyGram applied the common-law escheatment practices outlined in Texas v. In Delaware v. New Jersey , 379 U.S.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases last week, with Justice Clarence Thomas participating remotely after being discharged from the hospital. Other issues before the Court included the extent of Congress’ war powers under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Constitution. ” In Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Instead, I spoke with Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago constitutionallaw professor who studies the interplay between the Constitution and individual rights and liberties. Frustratingly, the Constitution provides little counsel. To which one could add a fourth: Texas Sen.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases this week. The two most closely watched involve whether the Court should overrule its landmark decision in Chevron v. The Court’s Chevron decision established a bedrock principle of administrative law. The cases before the Court, Relentless, Inc. 837 (1984).
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the City. Issues Before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 30, 2021.The 1744 (2017), and Circuit Court precedents in New Hope Family Servs., First Circuit’s Decision.
We have been discussing the state laws requiring contractors and employees to swear that they do not support the the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (“BDS”) movement against Israel. I have long maintained that the law is unconstitutional as a limitation of free speech and associational rights. In NAACP v. Recently, the U.S.
Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke has been ping-ponging on gun confiscation ever since his presidential candidacy in 2019 when he famously declared “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.” ” When he decided to run for Texas governor, he then dialed down that pledge.
Supreme Court held that an elected trustee did not have an actionable First Amendment claim arising from his Board’s purely verbal censure. The Court’s decision was unanimous. The Houston Community College System (HCC) is a public entity that operates various community colleges in Texas. Supreme Court’s Decision.
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. ” Indeed, I am a bit confused by the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of these laws in calls for statewide boycotts.
While there is a fair debate over the policy of relocation by states like Texas and Florida, the effort to use the criminal process as part of that political debate is … well, pathetic. First, let’s look at the law. The reason is that these claims are made for cable news, not courts of law.
The complaint of the raises the little used power under Texaslaw to forcibly bring legislators to the floor. The United States Constitution has the same power. The court will have to decide the authority to order such an arrest and the authority of officers to rely on that authority. Bassett, Jeremy Monthy and Megan Rue.
Lucero of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I will be joined by two distinguished academics: Professor Elizabeth Sepper, University of Texas at Austin School of Law and Professor John Yoo, University of California Berkeley School of Law. the Court handed down two major such rulings. In the last term.
.” Despite the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States, the Constitution still protects such protests, including the burning of the American flag. In Texas v. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
New York Democrats have passed a series of laws that led to catastrophic losses in federal court, including the recent major ruling in in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.
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.
Guillard is a Texas-based social media commentator, and accused Scofield of arranging the murder of Xana Kernodle, her boyfriend Ethan Chapin, and Kernodle’s roommates Maddie Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves in their Moscow (Idaho) house on Nov. Scofield denies ever meeting any of the victims, let alone having an affair with one of them.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a case challenging a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence court order from owning a gun. The new framework was established by the court in its 2022 decision from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The case, US v.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has blocked border enforcement by the state under Texas’s SB 4. Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigration laws. United States , 567 U.S.
612 will affect not only Oklahoman women’s constitutional right to access abortion services but also will affect women in Texas, who have been forced to travel out of state to access abortion services after the passing of S.B. 8 in Texas in September 2021. The Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases. United States , which involves the scope of a key federal bribery law. Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Ciminelli v. Last week, the U.S. One of the most closely watched is Percoco v. United States v. 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C.
Supreme Court held in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson that abortion providers may bring a pre-enforcement challenge in federal court as one means to test whether Texas’ s strict abortion law violates the U.S. Constitution, albeit only against certain state medical licensing officials. 8 violates the Constitution.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases this week, all of which asked the justices to resolve a circuit split. The issues ranged from whether a death row defendant can obtain postconviction DNA testingto what test courts should apply to Title VII discrimination claims brought by a member of a majority group (i.e.
Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law. No state faces a greater danger than Texas.
Supreme Court recently declined to block enforcement of a Texaslaw that prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The Court denied the application for injunctive relief in Whole Woman’s Health v. The Texaslaw at issue, S.B. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
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