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
The US Supreme Courtruled Thursday in Jones v. Mississippi that when sentencing juvenile defendants to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole, judges need not make a separate factual finding concerning the defendant’s youth. … For most, the answer is yes. . … For most, the answer is yes.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court in Jones v. Mississippiruled judges do not need to make a factual finding of “permanent incorrigibility” when deciding to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Photo courtesy Mississippi Department of Corrections. In Miller v.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization , a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans almost all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, that a majority of the court was ready and willing to roll back abortion rights. The only real question was how far the justices might go. And in West Virginia v.
And even if the court does not formally overturn Roe and Casey , a decision weakening those precedents would permit new abortion restrictions, perhaps including bans on some early-stage abortions. In Dobbs , Mississippi and its supporters are urging the court to answer that question with a full-throated “no.”. Katie Barlow).
Share Justice Stephen Breyer, a devoted pragmatist and the senior member of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, will retire from the court at the end of the 2021-22 term, NBC News reported on Wednesday. A pivotal vote in religion cases. At the oral argument in Dobbs v. Texas , rejecting an effort to strike down the Affordable Care Act.
Despite annual columns questioning such apocalyptic predictions, which often seemed more political than legal, the granting of Dobbs led me to write my first “this could be it” column. That does not mean the court will do so, but it could substantially reduce Roe’s hold over states. Hodges and the ObamaCare ruling in NFIB v.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to the Mississippi abortion law. The statement seemed directed at Sotomayor’s three new colleagues and the effort to use the new court composition to seek the reduction or overturning of Roe v. Here is the column: In Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral argument in Dobbs v.
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