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
But local governments operate under varying legal parameters, and the Ninth Circuit decision has different implications for different building electrification requirements depending on location, legal landscape, and policy approach. This post is not expressing a legal opinion on Ithaca’s code.) Under EPCA, the U.S.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Wednesday announced it had filed a lawsuit to block the application of a legal opinion in connection with Idaho’s abortion laws. The opinion, authored by Idaho Attorney General (AG) Raúl Labrador, concerns § 18-622(2) of the Idaho Criminal Code.
The US Supreme Court announced Monday it will review the legality of state efforts to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors — a contentious issue in a nation deeply divided over transgender rights and the role of medical intervention in youth gender identity. The case, US v.
The US Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s appeal to review a lower courtdecision that bars emergency abortions violating Texas’ strict abortion ban on Monday, leaving in place restrictions on emergency abortion care in the state. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling in January 2024.
The state of Idaho and the Alliance Defending Freedom, an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group, have appealed to the Supreme Court to allow an Idaho law that would penalize abortion providers, Carter Sherman reports for The Guardian.
In September 2017, Adree Edmo , an incarcerated transgender woman, sued the Idaho Department of Corrections for refusing to provide her with medically necessary transition surgery, saying the refusal violated the Eighth Amendment. Courtesy Idaho Press. However, no Supreme Courtdecisions are currently expected on the issue.
Three physicians and the Catholic Association Foundation write that advances in science have “painted an intimate portrait of the fetus and its humanity” and therefore the court’s viability framework is outdated. Many amici focus on the principle of stare decisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes filed a lawsuit in federal court in Idaho challenging the U.S. Idaho, filed Dec. UK Supreme Court Overturned an Appellate CourtDecision, Allowing the Approval Process for a Third Runway at Heathrow International Airport to Move Forward. Friends of the Headwaters v. filed Dec.
Biden signed the order in a video call to the first meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access , established after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and led by Vice President Kamala Harris. In his remarks before signing, Biden said: I believe Roe got it right.
CNN noted that prominent legal figures like Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society have argued that the criticism is an overreaction to a procedural ruling, not a substantive one. Tsarnaev (2022), Barrett criticized judicial overreach, questioning appellate courts supervisory power. Similarly, in George v.
The states argued that the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan while it was under review by the D.C. Circuit in 2016 signaled that the legal framework for the Clean Power Plan “hinges on important issues of federal that EPA then—and the court below now—got so wrong this Court was likely to grant review.”
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