In two separate opinions today, the U.S. Supreme Court solidified its authority as a co-equal and powerful branch of our constitutional government. The Court rejected President Trump’s arguments for immunity from state grand jury, as well as congressional subpoena demands for documents. Continue reading “Rory Little on the Presidential Subpoena Cases”
In a decision issued July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court dodged a constitutional bullet that could have thrown the 2020 presidential election into confusion. By deciding unanimously that states have authority to penalize “faithless electors” who cast a presidential vote contrary to a state’s direction, Continue reading “Rory Little on “Faithless Electors””
The case was about robocalls. From 1991 until 2015, Congress banned robocalls to cell phones. In 2015, Congress made an exception for debt collectors who are collecting for the federal government. Continue reading “Matt Coles on Robocalls”
The COVID pandemic has upset everything, including civil litigation. The courts and litigators are beginning to come to grips with it. Some say things will never be the same again.
The rulemakers have begun to focus on these issues. Continue reading “Rick Marcus on Post Pandemic Procedure”
Until the Supreme Court’s June 18 decision in Dep’t of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (Regents) there has been little confidence among immigrants and their advocates that any case challenging an action by the Trump Administration directed at non-citizens stood much chance of resulting in a positive outcome. The 5-4 decision authored by Justice Roberts either indicates that the Court is changing or is an aberration for the present Court. Continue reading “Richard Boswell on Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California”
One of the remarkable things about the Bostock decision is how something which seems obviously right to the Supreme Court today struck judges as obviously wrong in the 70s and 80s.
Bostock says the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s ban on sex discrimination in employment covers discrimination against LGBT people. The court said it is impossible to discriminate against someone gay or trans without treating them differently because of sex. Continue reading “Matt Coles on Bostock vs. Clayton County”