SCOTUS Hands Religious Institutions Two Important Victories
The Supreme Court released two of its five remaining decisions today; both were 7-2 and both were a victory for the religious.
The Supreme Court released two of its five remaining decisions today; both were 7-2 and both were a victory for the religious.
Kavanaugh writes “A robocall that says, “Please pay your government debt” is legal. A robocall that says, “Please donate to our political campaign” is illegal. That is about as content-based as it gets.”
Let’s discuss religious freedom in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, via another new decision fresh off the SCOTUS presses.
These former Twitter brands have found an audience receptive to their bloviating on Parler. Wonderful. And also, how boring.
A tale of two headlines: Why Trump Keeps Losing at the Supreme Court vs. How the Supreme Court is Quietly Enabling Trump and other law tidbits
When SCOTUS took up the cases, many feared the worst from a Court that is conservative-heavy. The 6-3, Gorsuch-authored opinion was a surprise.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court rules that employment discrimination against LGBT+ people violates the Civil Rights Act.
Qualified Immunity, a blockbuster summer for the Supreme Court, lawyers going to lawyer, and a $67 million dollar lawsuit over missing paints in Wednesday Writs.
The news that Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison elevated the charge against Derek Chauvin to second degree murder for the death of George Floyd brought mixed reactions. For some it was satisfactory; for others...
Somewhere along the way, Qualified Immunity was twisted to shield officers from consequences of actions no one can argue were ambiguous in wrongness.
The preliminary report: death was “caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain”.
While the significance of Brown v. Board of Education cannot be overstated, a lesser-known predecessor from thirty years prior deserves some attention
People would be better off realizing how often a Supreme Court decision rests on a legal technicality or procedural element, as opposed to the merits of a particular position.
The confrontation clause — the right to face one’s accuser — is among the most well-known of our constitutionally guaranteed criminal rights.
In other words, absent a will, would the person be eligible to inherit from the deceased’s estate the same as a duly recognized child?
This week, the Court delivered its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, in what must be among the most fractured opinions in SCOTUS history. Let me try to break that down:
L1: We recently discussed, in this space, the quarantine power of the state, hearkening back to the very early 1900s and the southern scourge of Yellow Fever. Today, while some fervently hope for the...
I wonder how far they can go, how long this can go on, before we lose our collective willingness to submit.
You should try a pepperoni roll sometime if you get the opportunity. Just make sure it is an actual pepperoni roll, and not one of the weak wannabe versions