Search

The article focuses on the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in the Haskins v. 3M Co. court case. It mentions that the court excluded expert testimony in this case concerning asbestos. It presents views of physician Carlos Bedrossian on the malignant mesothelioma which is a result of repeated exposure to asbestos. It also mentions that John E. Haskins and James W. Chesher have also served in the U.S. Navy.

The article presents a case where the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has filed a complaint against the Harvard College in a federal district court. It mentions that SFFA has claimed that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans by holding them to higher admissions standards than other racial group, including whites. It also mentions about judgment of Supreme Court in the U.S. concerning discrimination against Asian students in colleges in the U.S.

The article discusses the court case Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services. Particular focus is given to how this case relates to constitutional law, the Origination Clause and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Details relating to how the court case took place in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia are also offered.

The article discusses the conflict of the decision made by the district court concerning the lawsuit of firefighters against the City of New Haven, Connecticut. The district court held that Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause and disparate treatment prohibition, was controlling and dismissed the equal protection claim. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that the action of the City presumptively violated the disparate treatment prohibition of Title VII.

The article discusses the issues regarding the assertion of the District of Columbia Circuit that the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is not the head of the SEC for Appointments Clause purposes in the U.S. It mentions that the Appointments Clause of the Constitution provides the president the exclusive power to appoint officers of the government with the Senate's advice and consent. Included in the discussion is the complaint of Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead & Watts LLP in the district court and their argument that the SEC could not be vested with appointed power. It is also inferred that the SEC chairman is the most significant and politically visible member of the commission.

The article discusses a court case wherein the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One (NAMUD) in Texas filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking bail out from the reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The Court rejected NAMUD's request for bailout because it was not a political subdivision eligible to request bail out based on the 1982 amendments. A three-judge panel of the Court upheld the new Section 5.

The article discusses the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding double jeopardy in criminal law including court cases that falls under the provision. In 1970, the Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which according to critics, is an overly broad statute which subject defendants to double jeopardy. A case that shows a consequence of RICO's broad scope is the United States v. Calabrese case in the Seventh Circuit, wherein defendants claim that they are prosecuted with double jeopardy. Judge Posner affirmed to the decision of the district court in denying the petition made by the defendants. The court established that double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment protects not only against double punishments but also duplicative trials.