Remove Court Decisions Remove Court Rules Remove Iowa
article thumbnail

Iowa high court rules abortion is not a fundamental right under state constitution

JURIST

The Iowa Supreme Court Friday held in Planned Parenthood v. The decision overturns a 2018 ruling which held there is a fundamental right to abortion in Iowa. After a lower court ruled the law was unconstitutional, Iowa appealed to the state supreme court.

article thumbnail

Animal rights and the First Amendment, due process and a confession of error

SCOTUSBlog

Some older Supreme Court decisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. Kelly further claims the circuits are divided on the issue, with a decision of the U.S.

Statute 108
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

They Called 911 for Help. Police and Prosecutors Used a New Junk Science to Decide They Were Liars.

The Crime Report

In 2009, Harpster learned about a double homicide in Woodbury County, Iowa, from a television documentary. As Esteves, the prosecutor in Iowa, put it in an email: “Have them testify why this 911 call is inconsistent with an innocent caller, consistent with someone with a guilty mind.”.

article thumbnail

Graphic Abortion Ads In Iowa By Presidential Candidate - And A Seminar on FCC Political Broadcasting Rules

Broadcast Law Blog

With the Iowa primary approaching, political ads are increasing on the local Iowa TV stations. It is then up to the voters (not the stations) to make the decision as to whether the candidate made wise decisions in delivering his or her message in their advertising in the way that they choose.

Legal 56
article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that she believed the Court’s interpretation would allow defendants to “sidestep” the general bar on appellate review by “shoehorning” a civil rights or federal officer removal argument into their case for removal. They seek a court decision setting aside government approvals of the power plant.

Court 43