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
Share At oral arguments earlier this week the Supreme Court was skeptical of the Food and Drug Administrations effort to block a NorthCarolina-based company from challenging the denial of its application to market e-cigarettes in the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in Louisiana.
Board of Trustees of NorthCarolina State University , which was unfortunately not reviewed by the Supreme Court. I was discussing the Fourth Circuit case of Porter v. Now, as feared, it is being replicated by the Sixth Circuit in Gruber v. of Trustees.
Share In a major election-law decision, the Supreme Courtruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. Roberts agreed that the court did have the power to decide the case on the merits.
The Court of Appeals of NorthCarolinaruled Thursday that people who are or have been in a dating relationship with a same-sex partner are equally protected against domestic violence as persons in opposite-sex relationships placed in a similar situation. While relying on the Supreme Courtdecision in Bostock v.
The US Supreme Courtruled Tuesday in Moore v. The theory stipulates that state legislatures retain exclusive authority over the administration of elections; therefore, state courts are not allowed to intervene, even if the law in question violates the state constitution. Reno and Cooper v.
Harper arose from a challenge to a new congressional map adopted by NorthCarolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in early November 2021. The NorthCarolina Supreme Court struck down the map after finding that it was a partisan gerrymander in violation of the NorthCarolina constitution.
A three-judge panel of the NorthCarolinaCourt of Appeals published a pair of opinions Tuesday holding that two people can be charged with murder for brutalizing a child 25 years ago — even though they had already been convicted of child abuse for the same act of violence in the late ‘90s. David Tripp, Jr.
Share For obvious reasons, the Supreme Court’sdecision on Monday to grant certiorari in a pair of cases challenging race-based affirmative action in higher education drew major headlines. University of NorthCarolina. Less well noticed was a curious procedural feature of the second case, Students for Fair Admissions v.
The lower courtruled that such funding of a religious school is unconstitutional. Before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, prevailed in arguing that the charter school board violated state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Here is the lower courtdecision: St.
And I had their ear, explaining Supreme Courtdecisions on a regular basis over many years. In June, the courtruled in R.G. & Darius Swann helped transform the promise of Brown into a court-enforced mandate. The three television networks had enormous influence. Harris Funder Homes v. EEOC that it does.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Northern Plains Resource Council v. Army Corps of Engineers , No.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, ruling that the 50% tariff was part of an ongoing plan of action that Trump had properly initiated earlier. The non-profit has now also filed a petition in a challenge to the University of NorthCarolina that it hopes can serve as a companion to the Harvard case.
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