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 Court, in a split decision, issued a brief statement on Thursday refusing to reinstate a Florida law that targets drag shows. Kavanaugh and Barrett appeared to disagree with the grounds upon which the state of Florida appealed the lower court’s ruling. ” The case at issue , Griffen v. .”
Share A divided Supreme Court on Thursday denied Florida’s request to allow it to temporarily enforce a law that makes it a misdemeanor to allow children at drag performances. The brief unsigned order means that the state cannot apply the law anywhere in the state while a Florida restaurant’s challenge to the law continues.
In 2019, New York passed a bill eliminating both cash bail for most misdemeanors and non-violent felony offenses and judges’ discretion in setting bail amounts in those cases. You’re asking people to pay for their freedom and young poor people, primarily of color, don’t have that ability.”. The Peril of ‘Dangerousness’.
Texas authorities say they have the right to keep it under civil forfeiture statutes. The result is not only the erosion of constitutional rights, but also loss of respect for law enforcement, which a University of Central Florida study confirms. Photo courtesy Institute for Justice.
It is a curious call for a governor to make after he ran ads in Florida calling on people to “join us in California.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) chimed in, declaring the flight from Florida might be “ State-sanctioned kidnapping.” Gavin Newsom (D., for kidnapping charges against Gov.
faces a misdemeanor simple assault charge for allegedly intentionally blowing on people. The litigation over last year’s lettuce recall has only just started due to the statute of limitations. This year saw more Black Friday lawsuits from injuries in prior years (generally subject to a two-year statute of limitations).
Those appellate issues include charges based on a novel criminal theory through which New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg not only zapped a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but based a state charge on federal election law and federal taxation violations. to the White House.
He had been convicted of misdemeanor trespass and felony criminal mischief and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in October 2017. A second activist who filmed the action was convicted of felony conspiracy to commit criminal mischief and conspiracy trespass, a misdemeanor. Martin County, Florida v. 1:18 -cv-00333 (D.D.C.,
Turns out the payments of hush money to at least two women—misdemeanor offenses—were not really what these indictments were all about. Ergo, there were no misdemeanor charges, only first-degree felonies. The unsealed indictment of The People of the State of New York against Donald J.
It may foreshadow an equally historic trial in the Florida courthouse. A speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment − and a federal statute − would set the case for trial within 70 days. A few key numbers could ultimately determine whether the case is history in the making or much ado about nothing. Those numbers are 90, 70, 12 and 1.
Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute. May 10, 2021).
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