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 agreed to consider a closely watched Louisiana redistricting dispute involving a map that created a second majority-Black congressional district in the state. The two cases, Louisiana v. In the first round of redistricting litigation, Robinson, et al v. Callais and Robinson v.
Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge a Biden Administration immigration enforcement policy. The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guidelines contravene two federal statutes that they contend require the arrest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison ( 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2) ).
There is an interesting development out of a case in Louisiana where a federal judge has ruled that Dr. Anthony Fauci and White House officials must testify in a case alleging a backchannel for censorship on social media. The lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana was joined by experts, including Drs. The complaint in Schmitt v.
When I was clerking in Louisiana after graduating law school, there was story of a rather notorious local judge asking counsel in a criminal case if he was ready to present the case of the defendant. This is a presumptively unconstitutional law and there are threshold procedural issues on the basis for a challenge.
That world is already taking shape with states crafting their laws reflecting the values of their citizens from Colorado passing a law protecting the right to abortion up to the moment of birth to Louisiana banning all abortions except in limited circumstances. Thus, we remain deeply divided.
On Friday night, the Supreme Court ordered the abortion pill mifepristone to continue to be made available to women by mail as challenges continue to be litigated in lower courts. He joined a dissent by Kagan in Louisiana v. That is what it did again in this case.
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. Other Areas: 15 points.
If the litigation can create serious doubts over the authentication or tabulation of ballots, the Trump campaign could force fights on the floors of these state legislatures. This is when things move into some uncertain constitutional physics. The problem was that rampant fraud was alleged in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina.
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. States Moved for Preliminary Injunction in Social Cost of Carbon Lawsuit in Louisiana. and non-U.S. July 15, 2021).
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. Nothing could be more damaging to the litigation and the federal courts quickly rejected the CDC and Tribe arguments.
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