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
Supreme Court last week when the justices ruled 9 – 0 that an innocent family's lawsuit against the federal government over a wrong house raid may now proceed. At the same time, however, the ruling was a depressing reminder that all too many people face all too many legal obstacles when it comes to suing federal agents for misconduct.
The Supreme Court on Monday morning added four new cases to its docket for the 2025-26 term, on issues ranging from whether a political candidate can bring a lawsuit challenging Illinoiss procedures for counting votes to the extent of police officers ability to enter ones home under the Fourth Amendment.
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists. The court is now holding a second relisted petition raising a similar issue, Elliott v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Supreme Court. The state's age-verification requirement "imposes a clear burden," the Free Speech Coalition told the Supreme Court, "forcing adult users to incur severe privacy and security risks—which the statute leaves largely unaddressed—before they can access constitutionally protected speech." The clock is ticking for the U.S.
The US Supreme Court Monday granted certiorari in nine new cases, including two cases on liability shields for online platforms. Google , the court is asked to consider the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which broadly shields online platforms from liability for content posted by the platforms’ users.
Three of the cases resulted in Supreme Court opinions. One of the three CLAY award Supreme Court decisions is Guardianship of Saul H. is also the only one of the three CLAY award Supreme Court cases to also be among the Daily Journal’s “ Top Verdicts of 2022.” 2022) 13 Cal.5th ” In Saul H. , 2022) 13 Cal.5th
For torts scholars, it has been a bonanza of interesting issues touching on every element of defamation law. There is now an important ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that could have enormous implications not just for the media but anyone who retweets stories or claims.
On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court threw out both of the jury’s verdicts and sent the case back for a new trial on all charges. Torri Madden) When the case returned to the lower court, McElrath argued that the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy barred the state from trying him again on the murder charge on which he had been acquitted.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. As October Term 2021 winds to a close, the Supreme Court is holding its penultimate scheduled conference this week. The petitioners also ask the court to overrule Employment Division v.
In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that young people and other plaintiffs asserting a claim against the federal government for infringement of a Fifth Amendment due process right to a “ climate system capable of sustaining human life” did not have Article III standing.
Such releases, however, occurred in prior administrations and the merits of these claims are still being argued in court. The courts have long recognized that presidents are allowed to establish priorities in the enforcement of federal laws, even when those priorities tend to lower enforcement for certain groups or areas.
Share The Supreme Court said Monday it will not take up a dispute over whether transgender students must be allowed to use restrooms that match their gender identities. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had relied in ordering the school board to allow Grimm to use the boys’ restroom. Two new grants on immigration, free speech.
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