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 has failed to discover who leaked a draft of the Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. According to the report, all of the Court employees interviewed affirmed under penalty of perjury that they did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court. Santos-Zacaria v.
The issues before the Court involved Native American law and immigration. United States : The case involves the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause and how it applies toa prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. The justices heard oral arguments in three cases.
And as a matter of fact, the Constitutional Court decision itself is already almost two months old; it was rendered on February 1. This and the fact that the decision cites almost no sources published after 2019 except for new editions of commentaries, suggests that it may have existed as a draft for much longer.
Dobbs is also the only example of a case where a complete draft of the majority opinion was leaked prior to the publication of the final draft. Politico’s release of an early draft of the opinion in Dobbs sent a whirlwind across the nation. The long lapse between Feb. Dobbs opinion vs. Dobbs leak.
Consider this a starting point: Purdue University Global Online Paralegal Degree Program Purdue University Global offers a flexible online format that focuses on core legal topics: legal research , document drafting, ethics, and technology in modern law offices. Theres no shortage of directions to grow.
Yet his record is not unblemished: He distrusted immigrants from China and even voted to deny citizenship to their U.S.-born Harlan’s dissent proved influential in changing the constitutionallaw of the nation. Harlan’s moral vision is memorialized in his lone dissent in Plessy v. born children. Last year, Peter S.
Below is my column in the Hill on the effort to declare an “invasion” along the Texas border to allow the state to take greater control along the border to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Greg Abbott signed an order allowing Texas law enforcement to return illegal immigrants apprehended in the state back to the U.S.
Indeed, the Biden administration has been found to have violated the Constitution in a surprising array of cases in a surprisingly short period of time. Across the country, trial courts have been finding constitutional violations by the Biden administration in areas ranging from immigration to the environment to pandemic relief.
This is perhaps best evinced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribes profane tirade the last time Trump raised this issue years ago: This fing racist wants to reverse the outcome of the Civil War. Those six words have perplexed many since they were first drafted. Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?
Trump was about to sign his travel ban and had sent the draft to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, an office ordinarily given considerable deference on the legality of policies and orders. The career staff at the OLC had found that the order was legal and within Trump’s authority.
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