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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
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.
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.”
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)
Below is my column in The Hill on what is shaping up to be a major Supreme Court term on the issues of parody and satire under the First Amendment. The Court could reframe the constitutional limits for criminal and civil liability in two cases currently on the docket, including one recently granted review. VIP Products LLC.
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.
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 United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (and the later denial of a motion for consideration ) in rejecting the much touted lawsuit to give residents a vote in Congress. I have written about D.C. residents a vote in Congress without statehood.
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.
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.
Supreme Court has invalidated the statutory bar against the federal registration of disparaging trademarks, on the ground that it violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional. What does this mean for businesses in general, including, in particular, broadcasters and the Washington DC National Football League franchise?
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.
There are laws that can be crafted within the confines set out under controlling Supreme Court precedent. However, as discussed in a column , President Biden continues to ignore those constitutional limitations in blaming the gun lobby and political opponents for these deaths. That is simply untrue.
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.
Generally there is no duty to rescue or to call police under the common law. For example, Washington state allows for the charging of a misdemeanor. The law covers violent crimes, sexual assault, and assault of a child. The language of this Court in Brown v. Some states have moved to penalize those who do not call police.
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.
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.
In a major but likely controversial victory for free speech, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the conviction of a retired Air Force Colonel for using a racial epithet at the shoe store on the Marine base at Quantico in Virginia. 568, 572 (1942), the Court has sharply abridged the application that exception.
We are not reducing police, we are “ reimagining policing ” … not “packing” the Supreme Court but “reimagining justice” … not embracing media bias but “ reimagining journalism ” … not embracing censorship but “ reimagining free speech.”. It appears that the Archives are moving forward with warnings and other reforms.
I have tremendous respect for many on the other side of this debate including former Judge Michael Luttig, who just penned a thoughtful column in the Washington Post arguing against such self-pardons. I recognize that this becomes circular on both sides but it does not significantly favor the constitutional interpretation.
.” 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. ”
Share Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. More restrictive laws are coming. Kate Shepherd, Rachel Roubein, & Caroline Kitchener, The Washington Post). To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.
The court has already imposed a fine, but according to some reports, jail time is possible. 46 (1988), the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Hustler for a parody of Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority and Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
at least in court. Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jen Rubin even posted that “The Maga squirrel deserved to die.” 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.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is under fire today for seemingly dismissing medical concerns over the risks of puberty blockers and gender surgeries for minors with a comparison to taking Aspirin. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “ debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.”
Courts have repeatedly found the Biden administration to be engaging in racial discrimination in such programs. Another court held that the administration engaged in systemic discrimination in implementing COVID-19 relief for restaurants and bars. the high court ruled that “legislative assurances of good intention cannot suffice.”
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.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a major victory for free speech this week in favor of a professor challenging his treatment by the University of Louisville. The district court correctly rejected that claim and the Sixth Circuit just affirmed that denial. In Josephson v. ” Crawford-El v.
While denouncing what they see as the Court abandoning its principles, they are celebrating someone who violated every ethical and professional principle in leaking this draft opinion. Here is the column: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor surprised many court watchers in December during the oral argument in Dobbs 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