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 Minnesota Supreme Court Wednesday upheld a state law prohibiting convicted felons from voting while on probation or parole in a 3-1 ruling. The court rejected this argument. Justice Thissen’s opinion also held that the statute did not create the racially disparate impact of felony disenfranchisement.
Share At oral arguments earlier this week the Supreme Court was skeptical of the Food and Drug Administrations effort to block a North Carolina-based company from challenging the denial of its application to market e-cigarettes in the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in Louisiana.
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a challenge by retailers to the Food and Drug Administration’s denial of an application by R.J. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in Louisiana. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where the retailers are based. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which includes North Carolina.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, the viability of certain types of disability-based claims under three federal statutes. courts of appeals are “nearly evenly divided” on this issue, the county asks for the justices’ review. Mississippi. Exby-Stolley.
Supreme Court Thursday in D.V. see also the newspaper coverage of the initial controversy ; court records reflect that the parties are Valente v. The trial court reasoned (see pp. The New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed , reasoning: [1. From the N.H. In June 2024, the defendant let her cat outside. United States v.
Montana Department of Revenue , the Supreme Court ruled that although states are not required to subsidize private education, states that choose to do so cannot exclude religious schools from receiving funding simply because they are religious. A new case on public funding and religious education. Last year, in Espinoza v. In Carson v.
The trial court ultimately ruled that the brother was incompetent and lacked capacity to sign the power of attorney for health care, that the power of attorney for health care was therefore invalid, and that the arbitration agreement was accordingly unenforceable. In Welch v. National Health Corp. , 3d 876 (Tenn. internal citation omitted).
In the context of countering plaintiffs’ assertion that the death was a homicide, defendant shared autopsy photographs of the son as well as some of his text messages, both of which were public records released by the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. On appeal, this ruling was affirmed. Summary judgment was therefore affirmed.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. Because the court was running a little behind this year and just released its last opinions on Thursday, the court also held the mop-up conference on Thursday, and the order list will be released Friday morning at 9:30 a.m.
Share A Texas law that bans abortions anytime a fetal heartbeat is detected will “immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas” if it is allowed to take effect on Wednesday, a group of abortion providers told the Supreme Court on Monday. The Mississippi case, Dobbs v. 1 effective date.
“Supreme Court Allows Challenge to Texas Abortion Law but Leaves It in Effect; The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, was drafted to evade review in federal court and has been in effect since September”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report. ” David G. ” David G. .”
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in two challenges to S.B. But Monday’s argument focused primarily on the law’s unusual enforcement mechanism, which distinguishes it from similar abortion bans that have been enacted by other states (and that have been consistently struck down by federal courts). 1 at 5:45 p.m.
Below is my column in The Hill on reaction to the refusal of the Supreme Court to enjoin the Texas abortion law. The order of the Court expressly did not reach the merits and certainly did not, as claimed, overturn Roe v. promptly declared that the court “ overturned ” Roe v. 1 to demand emergency court intervention.
Share At the end of each year, SCOTUSblog remembers some of the people whose lives and work left an imprint on the Supreme Court. From legendary lawyers to lesser-known activists, journalists, and plaintiffs, the following individuals who died in 2022 all shaped the court and the law in their own ways. David Beckwith (Oct.
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. In past years, the court has quietly added a small green marker to its online calendar to note that day has become a “conference” day. But the court has indicated it will be releasing orders this Thursday, July 3.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. and non-U.S. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate@gmail.com.
Share When he ran for president in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would vote to end the constitutional right to an abortion. If the court were to overturn Roe and Casey , access to abortion in America would shrink dramatically and immediately. Katie Barlow).
Share Two months ago, Texas put in place the most restrictive abortion law since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. The answer to that question may come in a separate abortion case , involving Mississippi, scheduled for argument on Dec. Wade in 1973. Nevertheless, the two Texas cases — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and United States v.
there is not a single thing that doesnt require litigation to challenge and enjoin. But were starting to see the floodgates open as more and more aggrieved plaintiffs are able to get their lawsuits into court. DOGE is purely a creation of executive order; no statute directed or contemplated its existence.
I submitted comments in response to the Supreme Court of Texas’s order requesting input about whether to maintain ABA accreditation for Texas law schools or pursue alternatives. First , from the Daily Journal : “ Litigation Funding Dodges Tax Bullet in Big Beautiful Bill. Read more here (gift link). Two headlines for #3.
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