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 German Constitutional Court on Tuesday ruled a law allowing double jeopardy in criminal cases where new evidence was available was unconstitutional. Originally, the law allowed four reasons for reopening a case: forgery of documents, false statements by a witness, judicial negligence or valid confessions post-trial.
After the Amendment took effect on January 1, 2018, Circuit City, a US chain of electronics retail stores, refused to pay the increased fees and brought suit in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming that the 2017 Amendment, which creates nonuniform bankruptcy laws, was unconstitutional. United States v.
Hendrix , a case that exemplifies the Gordian knot that is the federal habeas corpus statute. Under Section 2255(h), a prisoner can bring a second or successive petition based only on facts that clearly demonstrate actual innocence or a new rule of constitutionallaw that the Supreme Court has made retroactive.
The US Supreme Court Thursday held that Social Security disability claimants are not bound by the issue-exhaustion requirement in administrative law judge (ALJ) hearings. Often, the requirement is mandated by statute. Writing for a 9-0 court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded that although the Social Security claimants in Carr v.
Under § 2255, federal inmates can collaterally challenge their convictions on any ground cognizable on collateral review, with successive attacks limited to certain claims indicating “factual innocence” or relying on “constitutionallaw decisions made retroactive” by the Supreme Court. Cochran is.
By a vote of 8-1, the Court held that to plead facts sufficient to support a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. Where the statute does not apply extraterritorially, plaintiffs must establish that “the conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States. Facts of the Case.
2401(a) ’s default six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The complaint challenged Regulation II on the ground that it allows higher interchange fees than the statute permits. 2401(a), the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States.
Facts of the Case As the Court explained in its opinion, Federal and state law distinguish between two kinds of payments to public officials—bribes and gratuities. While American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law’s treatment of gratuities is more nuanced,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained.
Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a federal aggravated identity theft statute. Section 1028A(a)(1) applies when a defendant, “during and in relation to any [predicate offense, such as healthcare fraud], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” In Durbin v.
The overwhelming majority of those books, though, analyze the work of the court interpreting the Constitution. The court’s other task — interpreting federal statutes — remains markedly underrepresented. Other justices who preceded Powell on the court could claim an expertise in securities law.
Share Tired of reading jargon-filled law review articles with hundreds of footnotes? The perfect antidote is Painting ConstitutionalLaw: Xavier Cortada’s Images of Constitutional Rights , edited by Professors M.C. Cortada’s painting reminds us that Gideon’s petition started a constitutional debate that is still ongoing.
Hendrix turns on the interpretation of the federal habeas statute, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The statute replaced the habeas remedy with the motion to vacate, unless the “remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner’s] detention.”
To leave the decision unreviewed would force Congress to revise substantially the affected portions of the securities laws solely based on the opinion of one divided lower court panel – hence, the Supreme Court’s buffet of constitutionallaw topics on Wednesday morning.
As Justice Alito noted in his opinion, the presumption against extraterritoriality is a “longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
In the past 20 years, the court has announced substantive constitutionallaw, pleading requirements, and timeliness rules that make it harder to win such arguments. 1983 , the iconic civil rights statute permitting plaintiffs (including prisoners) to sue state officers for infringing constitutional rights.
All types of law offices, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, marital, occupational, and moreemploy paralegals to conduct critical aspects of their work. The program will prepare you for an entry-level position as a legal assistant in a number of areas of law.
Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. 922(g)(8) , a federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. In United States v. Rahimi , 602 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S.
By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
According to the Court, a country’s alleged taking of property from its own nationals does not fall under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception, which applies to “property taken in violation of international law.”. We look to the law of property.” Facts of the Case. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The centerpiece of Cuomo’s plan is a new law to allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers under a nuisance theory. It is doubtful that Cuomo truly believes that the law will make a significant, if any, impact on gun violence. The new law is written to get around a federal ban on such lawsuits. Of the $138.7
Nonetheless, the court concluded that its hands were tied by the law of the case, in light of the D.C. The CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination,” the Court wrote. “The Supreme Court’s Decision.
Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther chair in American history at Fordham University and adjunct professor of law at Fordham Law School. It is particularly noteworthy that Justice Stephen Breyer called out his colleagues for engaging in the most rank form of law-office history in his dissent.
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. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. ,
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Tennessee law limiting drag shows on constitutional grounds. Putting that concern aside, I have serious free speech concerns over the reach of these laws. Federal district judge Thomas Parker granted an injunction on the ground that the Tennessee law is vague and overly broad.
In the 2003 decision, the Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School’s race-sensitive admissions program was narrowly tailored because the consideration of race was merely one factor in the decision-making process and individualized consideration was given to each applicant. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Supreme Court upheld a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully. According to the Court, the law does not run afoul of the First Amendment. In United States v. Hansen , 599 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher at Sciences Po Law School) The fourth issue of the Revue critique de droit International privé of 2023 (available here ) was released online some time ago. Private international law and fundamental rights). It features two articles and several case notes. In the second article, Pr.
837 (1984), courts must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency is charged with administering, even if they are inclined to rule another way. The Court’s decision in Chevron is one of the most frequently cited administrative law decisions. In Loper Bright Enterprises v.
The statute imposes a maximum $10,000 penalty for nonwillful violations of the law. Meanwhile, Section 5314 provides that a violation occurs “when an individual fails to file a report consistent with the statute’s commands.” As Justice Gorsuch noted in the majority opinion, the statute lacks any account-specific language.
Keywords: Judicial Review, Constitutionality of Law, Re-modification of Laws, etc. These Petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that, if the language of the statute is clear and precise, then there is no need to read the words of such law into the statute.
At issue was the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § The federal law makes it “unlawful for any person. When his wife recently bought him a deer-hunting rifle, he learned that he was barred under federal law. It also is an appeal that would be made by the United States over the invalidation of a federal statute.
In Monday’s oral argument, Paul Clement, on behalf of Axon, stated that the company is “challenging the constitutionality of statutes that insulate agency officials” and violate due process rights by “denying access to courts.”
According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. In 2014, Reed filed a motion in Texas state court under Texas’s post-conviction DNA testing law. The District Court dismissed Reed’s complaint.
One concern was that the statute states that the court should not, and might not even have the power to, pull such an asset back into the estate. When Brunstad argued that the statue was clear enough, Gorsuch interjected that “we normally require magic words like ‘no jurisdiction,’” something this statute lacks.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented , calling the independent-state-legislature theory “an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutionallaw” and indicating that “further review of the judgment below may be warranted once a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed.”
In challenging the law, TikTok and its users argue that the PAFACAA violates the First Amendment and constitutes an unlawful bill of attainder under Article I. United States : The case involves what constitutes”false statements” under 18 U.S.C. Thompson v. The specific issue before the justices is [w]hether 18 U.S.C.
The first clause focuses on “remedies” and sets forth this general rule: “Nothing [in IDEA] shall be construed to restrict” the ability to seek “remedies” under “other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities.” The Court ultimately concluded that Perez’s interpretation better comported with the statute’s terms. “The
Facts of the Case The case centers on the Constitution’s Appropriation Clause, which commands that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. The Supreme Court went on to find that the CFPB’s funding statute contains the requisite features of a congressional appropriation.
Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a case that is expected to define the scope of federal identity theft law. The appeals court found that the “plain meaning” of the word “use” is “to employ for the accomplishment of some purpose” or “ ‘to avail oneself of,” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1776 (10th ed. Facts of the Case.
In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute.
Former Georgia police sergeant Nathan Van Buren used his patrol-car computer to access a law enforcement database to retrieve information about a particular license plate number in exchange for money. The post SCOTUS Adopts Narrow Interpretation of Computer Fraud Act appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
Saul, 593 U.S. _ (2021) , that the principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed. Supreme Court unanimously held in Carr v. Facts of the Case. Thereafter, the U.S.
Given that the United States, as a sovereign, is generally immune from suits seeking money damages unless Congress chooses to waive that immunity, the Court’s “clear statement” rule allows a suit against the government only when “the language of the statute” is “unmistakably clear” in allowing it.
In the wake of the country’s most recent mass shooting, the justices considered a case that could overturn a federal gun law. Rahimi, challenges a federal law prohibiting the possession of a firearm by anyone who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. The case, United States v. Bruen , 597 U.S. _ (2022). 1681 et seq.,
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