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
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Tennesseelaw limiting drag shows on constitutional grounds. Federal district judge Thomas Parker granted an injunction on the ground that the Tennesseelaw is vague and overly broad. “Drag” is not defined in the law.
As I noted earlier , if the officer intended to shoot Babbitt, it would not likely meet the standard for a justified shooting under governing cases like Tennessee v. I fail to see the justified basis under controlling legal standards but I may have the bias of a criminal defense attorney. Garner (1985).
If the officer intended to shoot Babbitt, it would not likely meet the standard for a justified shooting under governing cases like Tennessee v. (Babbitt was trying to climb through a broken door in the Speaker’s Lobby as police fought back the mob). Garner (1985).
Here is what I precisely wrote on the Blount and Belknap impeachment in The Executive Function Theory, The Hamilton Affair, And Other Constitutional Mythologies , 77 North Carolina Law Review 1791 (1999): 1. The impeachment of Senator William Blount of Tennessee may have been the most interesting both factually and legally.
Skrmetti The case examines whether Tennessee’s law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors, based on their sex, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. No decision yet United States v. Check out more of his writing at Legalytics and Empirical SCOTUS. Find him on Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
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