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
This represents a significant change from the 2019 Raise the Age law , which allowed most 16- and 17-year-olds to remain under juvenile court jurisdiction regardless of the severity of the charges. This principle is rooted in the 1983 North Carolina Supreme Courtdecision State v.
Nebraska, Department of Education v. While largely believed to be an apolitical institution of the tripartite United States government, the Supreme Court has always been influenced by personal politics and the “flavor of the day.” But despite all the doom and gloom, the latest SCOTUS decisions are not the end of the story.
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 courtdecision setting aside government approvals of the power plant.
Oyer, the pardon attorney for the DOJ, was fired March 7, 2025, and asserts her termination resulted from refusal to recommend restoration of firearm rights to Mel Gibson, who lost these rights in a 2011 misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. Oyer declined. Corporate demand is likely to push an even larger boost of needed legal services.
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