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
Bruen invokes the authority of history but presents a version of the past that is little more than an ideological fantasy, much of it invented by gun-rights advocates and their libertarian allies in the legal academy with the express purpose of bolstering litigation such as Bruen. Bruen does mark a new low for the court.
Texas : The case involves gaming activities on Native American land in Texas. Texas , 36 F.3d 1994) (“Ysleta I”) granted Texas regulatory jurisdiction over non-prohibited gaming activities on the Tribes’ lands. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. 3d 1325 (5th Cir. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S.
The challengers, two groups that represent farmers and pork producers, contend that the law “will transform the pork industry nationwide,” while California and its supporters insist that the impact will be more limited.
Texas , 392 U.S. Finally, Justice Gorsuch discussed the problems resulting from the so-called “ Martin experiment,” including legal uncertainty and litigation. The post Supreme Court Upholds Homeless Ordinance Imposing Criminal Penalties appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. It also cited Powell v.
.” The problem, however, is that this is just like the transport of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in September 2022, which a number of Democratic leaders and legal experts insisted was also a clear case of kidnapping and human trafficking. First, let’s look at the law. Newsom previously asked the U.S.
The undocumented migrants who were transferred to Martha’s Vineyard have quickly adopted one common American practice: litigation. The splattering of a claims face considerable legal barriers based on the consent of the migrants, as shown in a waiver released by Florida. Here is the complaint: Alianza-Americas v. DeSantis.
Jackson that abortion providers may bring a pre-enforcement challenge in federal court as one means to test whether Texas’ s strict abortion law violates the U.S. Constitution, albeit only against certain state medical licensing officials. The justices also ruled that the law (S.B. 8 violates the Constitution.
The reason is that these legislative measure are propelled by political rather than legal judgment. The gun nuisance law is the latest in a long line of mistakes by New York. Not only is the law likely to be a large miss, it will likely deliver another blow to gun control efforts by adding precedent protecting Second Amendment rights.
Gavin Newsom thrilled many this weekend by saying that his administration will model a new law on Texas’ abortion ban that would let private citizens sue anyone who makes or sells assault weapons or ghost guns. Legally, that is. It will be hugely successful politically, but not without costs to the state and potential litigants.
Below is my column in The Hill on reaction to the refusal of the Supreme Court to enjoin the Texas abortion law. The Texaslaw is not even the greatest threat to Roe. Both were legally and factually wrong. Both were legally and factually wrong. Future abortion rights do not run through Texas or Congress.
Below is my column in the Hill on how the next round of post-Roe litigation is coming into sharper focus. Such changes are like the shifting of tectonic plates, triggering earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in the legal lithosphere. Texas is suing the Biden administration over new guidance issued after the Dobbs decision.
Efforts to ban this model have already failed in the courts on constitutional grounds, though litigation is continuing on that issue. Whenformer Texas congressman and U.S. These calls for greater gun controls remain either factually ambiguous or legally dubious.
Texas on the request for an emergency injunction in Texas to block the state’s controversial abortion law. The merits of the law are not at issue in the questions presented today but the decision to push for an injunction comes with some risks for the Biden Administration. Jackson and United States v.
In the prior litigation, the city waited for a year to reveal the truth that it used tear gas near the park. As I noted in my testimony to Congress on the protest, the clearing of the park raised serious legal questions, particularly the unjustified use of force that night.
After Dobbs was accepted, advocates sought to enjoin a Texaslaw that banned abortion after just six weeks. The court ruled 5-4 to allow the Texaslaw to be enforced. The Biden administration and other litigants then forced a reconsideration of that decision.
The Texas Supreme Court has handed down a major ruling in defense of free speech this week. The underlying cases stem from an intense political fight over an ordinance passed by the city council in Waskom, Texas. A week later, after Dickson failed to yield, the Afiya Center sued Dickson and Right to Life East Texas in Dallas County.
From the outset of the Texas lawsuit, I stated that it was virtually guaranteed to fail on standing. Pascrell’s move against his colleagues mirrors language in the response of Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Josh Shapiro calling the Texas lawsuit “seditious.” Rebels do not storm the courts with legal filings.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Supreme Court oral arguments are more than just legal debatestheyre a high-stakes battleground where justices reveal their philosophies, test the strength of arguments, and sometimes, subtly try to persuade their colleagues. She also considers strategic behavior in shaping legal outcomes.
It would then depend on the Maine litigation to bring the matter back to the Court. Here is the column: It is “a sad day for America and the Constitution when a court decides the outcome of an election.” At the time, another rising star in Republican legal circles was getting her start as a young law firm associate.
I recently wrote a column on the legal challenges to President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate issued through OSHA. Biden admitted that his White House counsel and their preferred legal experts told him that the move was likely unconstitutional. Here is the opinion: BST Holdings v.
In a series of recent decisions, federal courts across the United States have addressed a range of significant legal issues, from civil rights and constitutionallaw to administrative authority and criminal justice. Area of Law: ConstitutionalLaw, Civil Rights, Federal Authority: 25 points.
note : Please welcome Renee Knake Jefferson back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, Legal Ethics Roundup, here. Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics. 2025 NYC Rule of Law Rally 2025 by David Lat is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
While legal experts pushed the department to challenge the entire order, the Department is seeking a smaller target. In litigation the rule is the same as in hunting: “aim small, miss small.” The filing seems intended to not just secure a victory before that release but also to abandon its prior sweeping legal claims.
For a year, legal and media experts have stated as fact that area was cleared for that purpose and that Barr was lying about the federal agencies using tear gas as opposed to pepper balls (even though the legal and practical difference is largely immaterial). The difference has little real significance either legally or practically.
That statement was then walked back due to the lack of legal authority to issue such a mandate. Ironically, this move comes on the same day that Attorney General Merrick Garland denounced the “clever” use of the Texas abortion law to make it more difficult to challenge.
Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term. Hawaii , called them legally and historically dubious.
Positions that were once denounced by media and legal experts as raw partisanship have now been adopted by the Biden Administration with little acknowledgement from those same figures. Garland has indeed followed the law, but some are not thrilled by where it has taken him. Jean Carroll, who alleges that Trump raped her.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati. and non-U.S. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE CASE CHART SINCE UPDATE # 148.
The move came on the same day Attorney General Merrick Garland announced an equally sweeping claim of federal jurisdiction over abortion rights in challenging the Texaslaw. Instead, it will sue directly as a party in interest because the law is viewed as countermanding a constitutional right.
Biden admitted that his White House counsel and their preferred legal experts told him that the move was likely unconstitutional. Despite the pledge to return to a respect for the “rule of law,” Biden openly suggested that they could use the litigation to get as much money out the door as possible before being barred by the courts.
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