Will the U.S. Senate play politics with the Supreme Court vacancy?

February 17, 2016 As you know, on February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in his sleep while on a hunting trip.That leaves eight justices on the Court: four conservatives and four liberals. There are many cases on the Courts calendar this term that are set for oral argument and decision. They […]

"Former Kansan potential nominee for Supreme Court"

Sunday, February 14, 2016 “Commentary: Scalia in history — a first draft.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” Posted at 02:18 PM by Howard Bashman “Scalia’s death to be ruled a heart attack”: Jason Whitely of ABC affiliate WFAA in Dallas, Texas has this report. Posted at 02:15 PM by Howard Bashman “Statements from […]

Briefing For The Big Bucks: CRST Asks U.S. Supreme Court For Attorneys’ Fees From The EEOC

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. is a key case for all employers. We have been tracking the developments (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) in this case since its inception. Now it has reached the U.S. Supreme Court on […]

Virgin Islands Supreme Court: Advocacy 1, Contempt 0

The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has reversed an order finding an attorney in contempt of court. The attorney represented a mother whose children had been taken from her and was trying to get them back. The purported contempt came when the judge suggested that the attorney’s client should readily submit to counseling. The problem started […]

The Supreme Court’s Recent Confirmation that Yearsley Derivative Sovereign Immunity Extends Beyond Public Works Projects

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Yearsley immunity a form of derivative sovereign immunity available to qualifying government contractors in its decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez. Until two weeks ago, many courts had misconstrued the Supreme Courts 1940 decision, Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Const. Co., 309 U.S. 18, 60 […]

Will the Supreme Court Kill Immigration Reform?

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a sweeping plan for executive action on immigration reform. His program would shield an estimated 5 million immigrants from deportation, including young immigrants known as Dreamers who were brought here illegally as children. The measures would also allow the parents of United States citizens and legal permanent residents […]

U.S. Supreme Court: Prior Finding That Mandatory Life without Parole Sentences for Youth Are Unconstitutional Now Found Retroactive

U.S. Supreme Court: Prior Finding That Mandatory Life without Parole Sentences for Youth Are Unconstitutional Now Found Retroactive In a key win for individuals nationwide who are serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed as children, the United States Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Montgomery v. Louisiana that their 2012 decision in Miller […]

Supreme Court Grants Certitorari in Case Challenging Denial of Grant Funds to Religious School

Tuesday, January 26, 2016 Supreme Court Grants Certitorari in Case Challenging Denial of Grant Funds to Religious School The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, No. 15-577 (cert. grant. Jan. 15, 2016),which challenges Missouri’s establishment clause barringthe grant of public funds to a church.The church suedMissouri officials after being […]

Ferocious awesome wins charm in Supreme Court

I review years ago that when the Supreme Court fought over the fatality charge in the 1970s and also 1980s, the liberal justices would certainly concentrate on lawful criterion in saying that the fatality fine in some instance was unconstitutional. In 2000, the Court stated in the Apprendi situation that any type of truth that […]

Will Supreme Court take on 1st Amendment concern in Madden NFL lawsuits? The very same San Francisco-based government charms court in 2013 sided with NCAA university football gamers in their claim versus EA, a judgment that resulted in a$ 40 million settlement.After the newest appellate court trouble, the California-based pc gaming firm pledged to appeal the NFL judgment.”We think in the First Amendment right to produce meaningful worksin any type of formthat connect to real-life individuals and also occasions, and also will certainly look for additional court evaluation to shield it, “the firm said.The allure to the Supreme Court is bring in prevalent passion from academics, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and also others. The guideline additionally cools expression, both due to the fact that it is difficult to forecast exactly what a court will certainly make a decision is completely”transformative,”and also since such a questions unavoidably needs a court to make a subjective judgment concerning whether a representation is”creative, “therefore requiring security, or”actual,”as well as therefore subject to liability.The right of promotion was very first acknowledged in 1953 in an allures courtcase concerning expert baseball cards. Digital Arts is asking the justices to assess a government appellate court choice from last year that discovered EA could not assert that the usage of the gamers’pictures were” subordinate”and also covered by the First Amendment. The exact same San Francisco-based government charms court in 2013 sided with NCAA university football gamers in their suit versus EA, a judgment that resulted in a$ 40 million settlement.After the newest appellate court problem, the California-based pc gaming firm pledged to appeal the NFL judgment.”We think in the First Amendment right to produce meaningful worksin any kind of formthat connect to real-life individuals and also occasions, and also will certainly look for additional court testimonial to safeguard it, “the firm said.The allure to the Supreme Court is drawing in extensive rate of interest from academics, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as others. The guideline likewise cools expression, both due to the fact that it is tough to forecast just what a court will certainly choose is adequately”transformative,”and also since such a questions undoubtedly calls for a court to make a subjective judgment regarding whether a representation is”imaginative, “therefore requiring security, or”actual,”as well as therefore subject to liability.The right of attention was very first acknowledged in 1953 in an allures courtcase regarding specialist baseball cards. EA claims the last time the Supreme Court ruledinto the issue was in 1977, when the justices ruled that a right-of-publicity insurance claim dominated over an information broadcaster’s First Amendment case to be able to relay an artist’s whole human cannonball act.