JURIST

NOVEMBER 8, 2022

If it had chosen to hear the case, the court could have decided whether it is inherent within the Constitution that criminal defendants are entitled to a trial by a jury of 12 or more members of the community. This deviation from the standard 12-person jury was permitted by the 1970 US Supreme Court ruling in Williams v.

Felony 249

Felony Court Court Rules Criminal Law 249

SCOTUSBlog

OCTOBER 4, 2022

Arizona he asks the Supreme Court to overrule a 1970 precedent holding that states can use juries as small as six jurors to try defendants for felonies. Currently, six states provide for criminal juries of six or eight jurors: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah. 28 conference). Khorrami v.

Construction 101

Construction Statute Felony Court 101

JURIST

JUNE 24, 2023

The US Supreme Court ruled Friday in US v. The crux of the case rests on Article III of the US Constitution, which governs the Court’s judicial purview. The US District Court Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of the states, enjoining Homeland Security from enforcing the memorandum.

Immigration 211

Immigration Court Rules Court Statute 211

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JULY 6, 2017

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a West Virginia federal district court had erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to consider the coal company Murray Energy Corporation’s and its affiliates’ lawsuit that sought to compel EPA to conduct evaluations of the Clean Air Act’s employment effects.

Court 40

Court Litigation Litigating Attorney 40

SCOTUSBlog

MAY 28, 2021

Rollins challenges a Massachusetts law that makes it a felony to secretly record the speech of anyone other than a law enforcement officer, irrespective of motive. Two petitions ask the justices to take up novel First Amendment issues. Project Veritas Action Fund v. In Louisiana v. Project Veritas Action Fund v.

Felony 136

Felony Statute Attorney Court 136

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

OCTOBER 7, 2019

The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. The court also declined to “create a new tort named abusive litigation.” National Review, Inc. ,

Court 40

Court Government Statute Tort 40