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 US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from the SouthCarolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (SCDPR) challenging a lower court ruling that found the state had waived sovereign immunity by participating in a federal antitrust lawsuit against Google.
The SouthCarolina legislature is moving to enact a new law with deeply troubling free speech implications. The language below is reminiscent of laws making it illegal to share information on committing suicide. The free speech concerns are even greater with regard to the SouthCarolinalaw.
Almost a dozen states (including Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, SouthCarolina, Arizona, and North Dakota) have passed legislation to bar CRT and roughly a dozen more are considering such legislation. A coalition of educators and public interest groups has sued states like Oklahoma over such laws.
Featured prominently on the law school’s website , the article pushes a similar proposal made in the Washington Post in 2015 by Theodore Johnson, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. Ironically, the proposals would upend decades of civil rights litigation to defend the “one man, one vote” principle.
By ignoring those countervailing principles, the Democrats are creating a dangerous blind spot in these proposed laws. The resulting litigation could leave core election rules in doubt heading into the next round of elections.
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.
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 SouthCarolina.
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