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
Second, Tyler argues that even if McCoy announced a new rule, Teague allows for the retroactive effect of substantive rules of constitutionallaw that prohibit certain criminal laws or punishments (as opposed to procedural rules, which are not retroactive). Instead, Tyler seeks to bring his claim under Griffith v. Ballance v.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general’s motion to intervene on the commonwealth’s behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, the state’s controversial abortion law. Facts of the Case. The secretary filed a notice of appeal. Supreme Court’s Decision.
.: Through more than two years of litigation, the Secretary of Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services led the state’s legal defense of its law prohibiting abortions in which an unborn child is dismembered while still alive. Over a dissent, the Sixth Circuit refused to allow the Attorney General to defend Kentuckylaw.
Among the slew of challenges to state abortion laws after the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , a newly filed action in Kentucky may be one of the most creative. It flips the script on past religious based arguments against abortion and say that Kentucky “has imposed sectarian theology on Jews.”
The other potential blockbuster of the week, which involves a legal challenge to a Kentucky abortion law, appears likely to be resolved on procedural grounds in favor of the state’s Attorney General. The post SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Four Cases appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
The Tennessee and Kentuckylaws are concerned with the types of medical procedures that healthcare providers might prescribe minors suffering from gender dysphoria. Under both States’ laws, medical providers are generally banned from performing sex-transition surgeries for such minors. Majority Op. Williams v. Skrmetti , 73 F.4th
1 , the court struck down as unconstitutional voluntarily adopted plans for assigning students to public schools in the racially diverse cities of Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky. Fiercely and pointedly, as the constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet explained in 2016, Roberts and Breyer were “contending over history.”.
But it fell short of that constitutional threshold. Not only that, but four states — Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky — rescinded their prior ratifications; a fifth, South Dakota, set its ratification to expire if the ERA was not adopted by the 1979 deadline. Ginsburg was not the only one dismissive of these theories.
In Harlan’s case, the story arc that first attracted me was the notion of posthumous vindication – how a man who went so far out on a limb in his time could land so comfortably in the mainstream of legal thought. Much of Holmes’ reputation rests on his role in First Amendment law, for instance, an area where Harlan’s legacy is negligible.
Over the last four years, we have seen an alarming trend of law professors and legal experts discarding constitutional and due process commitments to support theories for the prosecution or impeachment of Donald Trump or his family. ” It goes to the most fundamental principles of justice in our legal system.
In July 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to such laws in Tennessee and Kentucky. Roughly half of the states (24 states, to be exact) have banned hormone therapy for transgender youth. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, now listed as U.S.
As this matter returns to the states, it is striking to consider what has changed legally and socially in the past 50 years. Roughly 16 states are poised or expected to make abortion illegal immediately under so-called trigger laws. South Dakota, Louisiana and Kentucky have immediate prohibitions that will come into effect.
I recently completed a study of what I call “rage rhetoric” and how our country has addressed such periods, legally and politically, from colonial to contemporary times. Crowds burned Jay in effigy, including a Kentucky mob that stuffed its effigy with gunpowder, guillotined it, then blew it up. One editorial declared: “John Jay, ah!
In his final week as president, Joe Biden again invoked liberal professors to justify a plainly absurd constitutional argument by declaring that the 28th Amendment is now ratified. By invoking “leading legalconstitutional scholars,” Biden only added redundancy to absurdity in claiming that the Equal Rights Amendment is now law.
Archivist, Colleen Shogan recently explained that neither her office nor the White House have the authority to publish the amendment unilaterally or waive the deadline for ratification: In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. ” The reason is simple. The underlying argument is utterly ridiculous.
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