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 heard oral arguments on Monday in Siegle v. Washington. The District Court ruled in the Circuit City trustee’s favor, and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. Fitzgerald and United States v. United States v.
“Historical Tradition: A Vague, Overconfident, and Malleable Approach to ConstitutionalLaw.” ” Law professor Michael L. ” The post “Historical Tradition: A Vague, Overconfident, and Malleable Approach to ConstitutionalLaw.” Smith has posted this article at SSRN.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas won’t be teaching a constitutionallaw seminar at the George Washington University Law School after thousands of students asked…
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.
Both parties are spending millions with the balance of the state Supreme Court in the balance. Ironically, the United States Supreme Court made that plain in an important Wisconsin case argued just the day before the state election. P.S.: Whoever wins, the majority should adopt a new seal for the Court.
justice system and reduce mass incarceration, argues a Washington and Lee University law professor. Expansion of the jury trial right would constitute a meaningful structural reform in democratizing criminal justice, at a time when such change is needed to establish the popular legitimacy of the criminal justice system,” writes J.D.
Where there is overwhelming evidence of a censorship system that a court called “Orwellian,” Plaskett has repeatedly denied the evidence presented before her committee. and others have pushed to simply pack the Court with a majority of liberal justices to support their agenda. Elizabeth Warren (D.,
Share So many books cover the work of the Supreme Court that the Journal of Supreme Court History can review several of them in each issue. The overwhelming majority of those books, though, analyze the work of the court interpreting the Constitution. But this book has much more to offer the student of the modern court.
Professor Reges has declared “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court.”. He has now been told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement is unacceptable because it questions the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people.
Washington Democrats are adding a fifth stage for confessions under a new law. The bill would amend the state law that currently applies to law enforcement, teachers, medical professionals or child care providers to report cases of child abuse or neglect. The court, however, ruled that he was constitutionally exempt.
Supreme Court held that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and implicate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The Court’s decision was unanimous. In Smith v.
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. There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. New London.
It was a bathroom break that inspired Bradley Neal , a 3L at The George Washington University Law School , to develop a product that uses generative AI to help law students better understand and brief cases. Returning to class after a visit to the bathroom, he had lost the thread of the case the professor was discussing.
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.”. Respondent Robert Boule owns a bed-and-breakfast—the Smuggler’s Inn—in Blaine, Washington.
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. Washington , 326 U.S.
A teacher in Washington was told to remove a “Blue Lives Matter” flag that she put up to support her brother who was a former police officer. On the one hand, certain forms of speech, or speech in certain contexts, has been considered outside the scope of constitutional protection. We now have the inverse case.
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. Supreme Court’s Decision.
Last night, the Texas Supreme Court lifted the temporary restraining order. The lack of case law was at the heart of the “fact check” of the PolitiFact. Such fact checks are often challenged as biased, including the well-known fact checking at the Washington Post ( here and here ). Thus, there is no legal clarity.”
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.
Recently, I was critical of a Washington Post column by University of California-Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Aaron S. Apparently, one such judge is United States District Court Judge Michael Fitzgerald who went out of his way to say that this was not a close question before summarily dismissing the Chemerinsky/Edlin theory.
Bruen, the first major gun rights case before the Supreme Court in ten years. Justices have been openly discussing a case to push back on lower courts that have been chipping away at its Second Amendment jurisprudence. The court will soon take up New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)
District Court Judge Larry Hicks dismissed the case in 2023. Now the Ninth Circuit has reversed Judge Hicks and found that Jensen is entitled to his day in court. The Court has held that, when a public employer retaliates against an employee for workplace-related speech, the First Amendment requires balanc[ing].
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. As a teenage congressional page, I was one of the faces in that crowd gathered around the court in October 1977 to watch history being made.
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. It was an ironic moment as Democrats in Washington celebrated their act while they denounced filibusters. James White.
The same concerns were raised this week after Washington Gov. Such a law would threaten political speech and create a chilling effect for those who want to raise such concerns in contested elections. Inslee’s proposals raise the same questions that we discussed in relation to “stolen valor” laws. In Lamont v.
Any first-year law student knows that you cannot comment on the silence of a Mirandized defendant after an arrest under the Fifth Amendment – let alone ignore a court order. Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
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.
4] The Washington Post and other media outlets have also declared the President’s insistence that his family did not take money from China as false. [5] 13] Some of the deals negotiated by Hunter involved potential benefits for his father, including office space in Washington. [14] Post, Apr. 27, 2023. [13] 27, 2023. [14]
Here is the column: With the formal approval of the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Joe Biden, the alarm and denial in Washington has reached an almost hysterical level. This false narrative is being repeated despite the fact courts have rejected this claim in actual criminal cases.
Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit voted 2-1 to overturn an injunction against Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban. The case could set up a major test for gun rights for the United States Supreme Court. Raoul by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. Conservative judge Michael P.
Those efforts received a boost recently from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which rejected the free speech claims of North Carolina State University Professor Stephen Porter. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University is pending before the Supreme Court for possible review. and Maurice C.
They have been heralded by Democrats in Washington (despite their own opposition to federal filibusters as anti-Democratic). The members hit on the meaning of arrest to incorporate constitutional and statutory limits for officers to make arrests, including the requirement of an underlying criminal allegation.
Washington, D.C. Shapiro Professor Of Public Interest Law. The George Washington University Law School. Washington, D.C. Former Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Garnell Whitfield, Jr. Buffalo, NY. Former U.S. Northern District of Ohio. Cleveland, OH. Professor Jonathan Turley.
Such demands have been heard on various cable networks for weeks without addressing the constitutional barriers to denying a duly elected member from taking a seat. In my view, Santos could prevail in a court fight over being seated if he is barred due to lying about his credentials or background. The court agreed.
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 highlight of the package, though, is a new law allowing people harmed by firearms to sue the manufacturers. Not only does that law face serious constitutional challenges but similar lawsuits brought on similar grounds have failed miserably in the courts. Either way, it is not the law being pitched to the public.
A video has gone viral of the owner of a Washington state dispensary unleashing a profanity-laced verbal attack on state trooper, Yasin Anwar, who pulled over a driver near the Green Seed in Moses Lake, Washington, a marijuana shop. City of Fort Smith , the court heard a similar case. In 1971, the Court ruled in Cohen v.
Courts have upheld the right of citizens to insult police, which is an unfortunate aspect of policing. Thus, in 2015, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that police could not arrest a 17-year-old who called them “pigs.”
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. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The case could present an important court test for this country in resisting the criminalization of speech that we have seen in Europe. Supreme Court weighs the right of schools to punish students for out-of-school speech in Mahanoy Area School District v. The Supreme Court accelerated that trend in its Morse decision.
Constitution’s 14th Amendment , race-based classifications trigger strict scrutiny requiring a showing of both a “compelling state interest” and “narrowly tailored” means. 469 (1989), the Supreme Court struck down a set-aside for minority businesses due to a lack of evidence of specific injuries. In City of Richmond v.
I recently discussed the Supreme Court’s affirmance of a decision rejecting constitutional arguments that the District of Columbia is entitled to a vote in Congress. I have repeatedly testified and written on the constitutional barriers to such a vote absent statehood. I was delighted when he accepted.
Many migrants are released soon after capture, including some without a hearing date or court dates that are years in the future. Moreover, it is not clear how transporting migrants who entered the country illegally to another state is a violation of law. The reason is that these claims are made for cable news, not courts of law.
In a Slate column entitled “ Constitutional Critiques of Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Proposal Are Absurd ,” Ackerman dismisses any possible constitutional challenge and made reference to my earlier Washington Post column. However, the fastest migration is likely to be into the courts rather than out of the country.
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