Search

The article focuses on the constitutional implications of a three-year park access ban for individuals charged with littering in Asheville, North Carolina, as explored in the case of Norris v. City of Asheville. Topics include the allegations of First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the plaintiffs, the procedural due process concerns surrounding the park ban policy, and the significant personal and professional impacts the bans have had on the affected individuals.

The article discusses the call for amending the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to protect due process interests at sentencing in the U.S. Topics discussed include sentencing before the Guidelines and the history of the Guidelines, guidelines relating to acquitted conduct sentencing and uncharged conduct sentencing, and proof burdens at sentencing.

The article from PC Gamer discusses Mikey T's experience as an intern at Alpha Protocol, America's secretive intelligence agency. Mikey's journey involves navigating conversations, training sessions, and missions with various colleagues, showcasing his progress and challenges. The article highlights Mikey's adherence to rules, his interactions with colleagues like Mina Tang and Sean Darcy, and his ultimate mission to arrest a target named Nasri. Despite some missteps, Mikey's determination and progress in the field are noted, leading to an action-packed conclusion with unexpected twists. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the case Meinecke v. City of Seattle which arose after Matthew Meinecke was attempting to read Bible passages to attendees gathered in Seattle, Washington during an abortion rally and an LGBTQ+ pride in June 2022. Topics include background on the case, the application of the First Amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and findings of the federal appeals court in the case.

Copyright of Abogacía is the property of Base Legal, SA de CV and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article examines a recent ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kiviti v. Bhatt, which raises questions about the authority of bankruptcy courts. The court determined that bankruptcy courts are not bound by certain legal constraints, as they are not considered Article III courts. This ruling has implications for the powers of bankruptcy judges and may require Congress to clarify the extent of bankruptcy jurisdiction. The article also discusses the issue of derivative jurisdiction and the release of third parties in bankruptcy cases, using the Endo International case as an example. It highlights concerns about the impact on smaller creditors who were unable to opt out. The article also addresses constitutional issues with appellate review in bankruptcy cases and suggests potential legislative solutions. Finally, it mentions the benefits of Subchapter V in reducing costs and protecting creditor interests. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of IUS ET VERITAS is the property of Asociación IUS ET VERITAS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of IUS ET VERITAS is the property of Asociación IUS ET VERITAS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the author's experiences as an assistant chief counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and as an immigration judge (IJ) for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). As an ACC, the author learned the importance of mastering the complexity of homeland security law, strategic thinking, resilience, and ethical decision-making. As an IJ, the author cultivated empathy, navigated legal complexity, developed cultural competence, and upheld judicial integrity. These experiences have shaped the author's approach to the law and made them a more effective advocate and leader. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the importance of due process in campus sexual assault cases, highlighting various instances where due process violations have occurred. It argues that due process is a fundamental principle that should be upheld in both the criminal justice system and on college campuses. The article also addresses the issue of false accusations in Title IX cases, suggesting that the current focus on feelings rather than facts has contributed to an increase in false allegations. The authors propose that the federal government should establish a minimum standard of due process in Title IX cases to protect the rights of the accused while addressing sexual assault on campuses. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the transformation of the justice system in Afghanistan following the Taliban's takeover. While the Taliban's courts lack due process and impose harsh punishments, they have been praised for their efficiency and perceived lack of corruption compared to the previous regime. The article suggests that the Taliban's focus on local dispute resolution and their introduction of local courts may have contributed to their success in gaining public support and boosting their effectiveness in the insurgency. The article also explores why Afghans may have been impressed with the Taliban's justice system, citing factors such as the resolution of long-standing disputes and the alignment of the Taliban's system with local values. The author argues that the Taliban's relatively successful provision of justice may have made the public more accepting of their rule and contributed to their conquest of Kabul. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the expanded involvement of the U.S. Supreme Court in land use permitting, taking into account the precedential history of the case Sheetz v. Cnty. of El Dorado. Topics discussed include Takings clause under the Fifth Amendment, application of legislatively mandated development fee classifications typical of police power land use programs, constitutional due process and equal protection in imposing rural impact fee, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.

The article examines the influence of the U.S. Constitution on potential government program and policies on climate displacement, as well as government strategy for coordinating managed retreat and responsibility for climate change mitigation, and the need for a constitutional revolution. Topics discussed include climate displacement on the homefront, constitutional authority for managed retreat and its implications for due process rights, Equal Protection clause and the 10th Amendment.

The article focuses on the procedures taxpayers should follow to resolve disputes with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) when they receive an assessment indicating they owe money. Topics include understanding the nature of the assessment, the process for requesting reasons for the assessment, and the timelines involved in resolving the dispute, including the 30-day window for requesting reasons and the 45-day period SARS has to respond.

The Supreme Court of the United States is facing a crisis of confidence among Americans, with trust in the institution at an all-time low. The court has been plagued by ethics violations and controversial decisions on issues such as abortion, guns, and presidential power. Some Americans view the court as activist, while others believe it is out of touch with reality. The justices themselves are aware of the need to regain trust and avoid becoming obsolete, but the path forward is uncertain. The court's legitimacy depends on the respect and faith of the people, and recent ethical shortcomings have eroded that trust. Both conservative and liberal Americans have concerns about the court, with conservatives even considering ignoring rulings they disagree with. The court risks becoming irrelevant and losing its role in the government if it continues to be seen as biased and lacking integrity. Efforts to address these issues, such as passing a bill to establish a code of conduct for the court, have been met with resistance from Republicans. Restoring confidence in the court will be a difficult task, and the future of the institution is uncertain. [Extracted from the article]

This article provides an update on recent court cases related to the manifestation determination obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from fall 2019 to fall 2024. The manifestation determination (M-D) is the process of determining whether a student's conduct is a manifestation of their disability. The article discusses the procedural and substantive requirements for M-Ds and presents trends in case law. It emphasizes the importance of school psychologists in the M-D process and suggests best practices for conducting M-Ds. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the concept of judicial recusal in the context of criminal justice matters, emphasizing the responsibilities of both judges and litigators. It highlights the importance of judges disclosing potential conflicts of interest, even if they do not believe recusal is necessary, to ensure fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings. The article also underscores the ethical obligation of litigators to prompt judges to comply with disclosure requirements, advocating for transparency and accountability in the judicial system. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Supreme Court Cases of Interest" discusses significant criminal law decisions from the Supreme Court's 2023 term. It covers cases such as United States v. Rahimi, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, Snyder v. United States, and Fischer v. United States. The article provides insights into the Court's interpretations of the Second Amendment, Eighth Amendment, federal statutes, and the implications of anti-camping ordinances and attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The document also previews upcoming cases related to capital punishment, firearms regulation, penalties, fraud, and sentencing under the First Step Act. [Extracted from the article]

This article provides an overview of the complex legal landscape surrounding Title IX, a law enacted in 1972 that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs receiving federal funding. The article discusses the changes in Title IX guidance and regulations under different presidential administrations, as well as inconsistent court rulings on the reach of Title IX. It highlights the revisions made to Title IX regulations by the Trump administration in 2020 and the subsequent rollback of some of those changes by the Biden administration in 2024. The article also mentions the lawsuits filed by 26 states to stop the implementation of the 2024 regulations, particularly concerning the explicit protection of LGBTQIA+ students. It concludes by recommending resources for further information on Title IX. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the legal challenges faced by an Indigenous man in Texas, who struggled to understand court proceedings due to language barriers. Despite efforts by interpreters, his comprehension remained limited, highlighting the complexities and limitations of the legal system in accommodating defendants with diverse linguistic backgrounds and ensuring fair trials.

This article explores the concept of privacy in the United States, specifically in the digital age. It argues that privacy is difficult to maintain in today's digital world, but state privacy laws and constitutions are starting to offer some protection for digital and consumer data. The article also examines how the Fourth Amendment, along with the Fifth Amendment, provides security and protection from the government, and how the First Amendment intersects with other constitutional rights. It discusses Supreme Court cases that address privacy in various contexts, including the right to make decisions about one's own body. The article then delves into the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, discussing the requirements for a search or seizure, the need for a warrant, and exceptions to the warrant requirement. It concludes by highlighting the protections offered by the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The article also discusses the impact of two Supreme Court cases, Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States, on privacy and technology. Carpenter v. United States established that a warrant is necessary for accessing location data, challenging the third-party doctrine that allows police to obtain certain records without a warrant. Riley v. California determined that cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant, as they contain a wide range of personal information. The Fifth Amendment provides protection against self-incrimination, while the First Amendment may be relevant in cases where the fear of surveillance hinders freedom of speech. Overall, these constitutional protections contribute to the privacy and security of [Extracted from the article]

This article advocates for the opening of closed juvenile court sessions to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in the justice system. It emphasizes the significant impact that juvenile and family courts have on the lives of young people, including determining whether they are tried as juveniles or adults and potentially resulting in life sentences or the termination of parental rights. The article stresses the importance of public understanding and the constitutional right of children and families to have their cases fairly adjudicated. It also discusses the historical context of closed sessions and the growing movement towards greater openness in some states. The text highlights the need for transparency in cases involving child protection, citing a recent case in Massachusetts where a child died after being placed by a juvenile court judge, sparking discussions about court practices and the role of child protection agencies. The article argues against reactive responses, such as removing children from their homes, and calls for a public health approach that provides resources and support to families. The author, a retired juvenile court judge, advocates for opening court sessions to promote accountability and understanding of the challenges faced by children and families. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the treatment of individuals who have faced legal charges related to their pregnancies. It sheds light on the negative attitudes and actions from the public and prosecution towards those who have experienced fetal demise, made choices about their bodies while pregnant, or struggled with substance use. The article emphasizes the importance of early intervention, collaboration with legal experts and prosecutors, and public advocacy to achieve positive outcomes for these individuals. It also highlights the significance of finding and retaining expert witnesses and accessing resources from advocacy organizations. The article includes examples of specific cases and the lessons learned from them, emphasizing the need to believe the client's perspective, question the reliability of scientific evidence, and educate prosecutors. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the challenges faced by individuals held in U.S. jails, particularly those awaiting trial. It highlights the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions in which they are held, as well as the lengthy wait times caused by court backlogs. The article also addresses the lack of resources and support available to inmates, including limited access to healthcare and educational programs. It emphasizes the need for reform in the criminal justice system to prioritize the well-being and rights of inmates. [Extracted from the article]

This article provides an overview of the recent constitutional challenges faced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and its practices. It discusses arguments raised by parties defending against FTC actions, including claims that the agency's structure violates executive power and fails the nondelegation doctrine. The article also explores concerns about the agency's adjudicative proceedings violating due process and equal protection. It highlights key cases that have raised these constitutional issues and suggests that the Supreme Court may need to address them in the future. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the specialized area of commercial cannabis law and the unique challenges and requirements that come with practicing in this field. It explains that while cannabis is illegal under federal law, many states have legalized medicinal and/or recreational cannabis, creating a complex and evolving regulatory landscape. The article also highlights the overlapping legal needs of cannabis businesses, such as entity formation, contracts, leases, and employment. The author, a cannabis attorney, shares their personal journey into this practice area and offers advice for aspiring lawyers, including reading and understanding the laws and regulations and getting involved in local cannabis industry groups and associations. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the use of opt-out releases in mass tort bankruptcies, which allow claimants to choose not to be bound by nondebtor releases in a reorganization plan. The article argues that opt-out releases are the best way to achieve a value-maximizing outcome for creditors and victims, as they provide the opportunity for enhanced recoveries and ensure fairness and due process. It discusses factors that courts consider when determining the appropriateness of opt-out releases, such as adequate recoveries for creditors and clear notice. The article also addresses the benefits of opt-out settlements in class actions. It concludes that opt-out releases are a preferable mechanism that preserves creditors' rights and allows them to participate in the deal unless they expressly decline. The text highlights various court cases and legal arguments surrounding mass tort bankruptcies and the use of opt-in and opt-out provisions, emphasizing the complexity of these cases and the need for creative solutions. It also explores the issue of due process and the protections afforded to creditors in bankruptcy cases, arguing that opt-out provisions can be more protective of creditor interests and that denying plan recoveries to silent creditors can be detrimental. The text suggests that statutory fiduciaries should have the ability to opt in to opt-outs in appropriate cases. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the contentious trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump over alleged hush-money payments, drawing comparisons to Stalin-era Soviet show trials and sparking widespread debate about the fairness of the judicial process. Legal analysts and critics argue that the trial was politically motivated, lacking due process and serving as a tool to punish a prominent political opponent rather than uphold justice.

This article explores the significance of disclosure and notice in the bankruptcy process. It highlights the responsibility of debtors to accurately disclose their creditors to ensure that all parties involved receive fair treatment. Notice is typically given to creditors through a creditor matrix, which is a list provided by the debtor. Failing to provide timely and accurate notice can have serious consequences, such as discharging debts that should have been exempted. The article cites a case, Licup v. Jefferson Ave. Temecula LLC, as an example of the repercussions of inadequate notice. In this case, the debtor argued for the discharge of a debt because the creditor did not receive notice of the bankruptcy filing. The court ruled that the entire debt was nondischargeable due to the lack of notice, emphasizing that the debtor's failure to meet their obligation deprived the creditor of their right to a fair hearing. The article concludes by underscoring the importance of fulfilling obligations of notice, disclosure, and due process to safeguard the debtor's discharge. [Extracted from the article]

This document provides a summary of various legal topics related to property rights. It discusses cases involving prescriptive easements, eminent domain, homestead exemptions, landlord-tenant relationships, mortgages, restrictive covenants, and the statute of frauds. The cases cover a range of issues, including property access, tax obligations, zoning ordinances, eviction litigation during the COVID-19 pandemic, zoning reform in California, and conflicts between public and private land rights. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the potential overturning of the Chevron doctrine by the Supreme Court. The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, outlines a two-step test for reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute. Critics argue that this doctrine grants excessive power to the executive branch and violates the principle of separation of powers. The fate of Chevron remains uncertain, with some justices appearing ready to overturn it while others aim to preserve it. The article provides insights from oral arguments and the perspectives of various justices, highlighting their skepticism or defense of Chevron. Additionally, the article briefly mentions another case involving the EPA's "good neighbor plan" for reducing ozone emissions, which is currently being challenged by multiple states. [Extracted from the article]

This article provides an overview of plea bargaining in the American criminal justice system. It explains that plea bargaining is the primary method of resolving criminal cases and discusses its historical origins and evolution. The article highlights the lack of oversight and regulation in plea bargaining, leading to inconsistencies and potential violations of defendants' rights. To address these issues, the American Bar Association has developed 14 principles aimed at creating a more transparent and fair plea bargaining system. These principles include promoting transparency, ensuring voluntary pleas, eliminating sentencing disparities, providing adequate counsel, and collecting data to monitor the process. The principles have been unanimously adopted by the Plea Bargain Task Force and endorsed by the American Bar Association. [Extracted from the article]

I can still vividly remember when Maj-Gen Oswald Reddy, who was the Station Commander of Honeydew SAPS at the time, and Lorinda Nel from Business Against Crime South Africa (BACSA) invited me in 2008 to visit the newly established operational centre at this police station in Johannesburg, to introduce me to "The Honeydew Initiative". This was a first of its kind pilot initiative combining the resources and skills of BACSA, the SAPS, Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD), and the private security industry. At the time there were at least 60 private security companies operating in the Honeydew policing precinct. Following due process, including being duly registered with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA) and the vetting of their security officers, those who met the criteria entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Honeydew SAPS. BACSA acted as the facilitator and conduit for optimised communication between the various role-players, identified and monitored the effectiveness of the initiative, and involved business parties that were previously not involved (Kempen, 2008). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on proposed amendments to the Medical Improvement Review Standard for Continuing Disability by the Department of Human Services, aiming to bring the rules in line with the Social Security Administration's disability determination criteria. It mentions that the amendments seek to replace obsolete rules, incorporating the Program Operations Manual System (POMS) to ensure the Bureau of Disability Determination Services operates according to current SSA policy.

The article discusses the Australian government's rushed immigration bill, which has been prompted by pressure from the High Court and Peter Dutton. The bill has raised concerns about its reach and abuse of the parliamentary process. The High Court's recent decisions regarding the release of detainees have spooked the government, leading to the introduction of this legislation. However, the bill has faced criticism from the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Refugee Advisory Panel for its overreach and potential negative impact on refugees and asylum seekers. The article calls for the government to return to due process and consult with relevant bodies to address concerns. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the intersection of thoroughbred racing's Triple Crown events with a briefing to the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA). The HISA, passed in 2020, created the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) to regulate medication control and racetrack safety in the thoroughbred racing industry. However, lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the Act, with the Fifth Circuit ruling it unconstitutional and the Sixth Circuit ruling it constitutional. The Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has issued 18 nonshadow-docket opinions, but has not yet resolved any major administrative law cases. Some of the unresolved cases include whether Chevron has survived, whether SEC ALJs violate the Seventh Amendment, and when a plaintiff's challenge to a rule under the Administrative Procedure Act accrues. In the meantime, the Court has issued opinions on various administrative law principles. These include a case on waiving sovereign immunity, a case on demonstrating mootness from voluntary cessation, a case on state action on social media, and a case on judicial review of immigration judges' discretionary decisions. [Extracted from the article]

The article offers information on recognizing signs of learning difficulties in children and navigating the process of getting help from their school. Topics include observing signs of struggle in children's academic work, meeting with teachers to discuss concerns, the importance of teachers listening and taking action on parental concerns, the process of evaluation for learning difficulties, including IDEA and Section 504 classifications, and the Response to Intervention (RTI) program.

The federal government has directed the Petroleum Division to prepare a policy paper to amend the OGRA Ordinance 2002, giving the regulator the power to set and notify gas prices in the future. This decision was made at a meeting of the Economic Coordination Committee and ratified by the Federal Cabinet. OGRA will set and notify gas prices after hearing from all stakeholders, and an appellate mechanism will be provided for parties seeking a review of the price set. The government aims to empower the regulator to set and notify prices after due process, as delays in price adjustments have had negative effects on the economy. [Extracted from the article]

Halima Culley lent her car to her son; Lena Sutton lent her car to a friend. Both borrowers were arrested for drugs while driving, and police seized the cars as “instrumentalities of crime.” The relevant state seizure statute contains an exception for innocent vehicle owners but offers no expedited hearing for owners to prove their innocence. The cities held both cars for over a year before Culley and Sutton proved their innocence in summary judgment proceedings. Culley and Sutton each filed class-action lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the cities’ failure to provide a prompt postdeprivation hearing violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Supreme Court will decide whether the need for a postdeprivation hearing is analyzed using the test used to determine violation of the Sixth Amendment’s “speedy trial” guarantee (Barker v. Wingo) or the test used to determine deprivation of property without due process (Mathews v. Eldridge). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As its subtitle promises, What's Left Unsaid prizes DeRosa'sposition at the heart of power, laying bare her enthusiasm fordomination and retribution--exactly the qualities that paved theway for both Cuomo's rise and his ouster. The sexist trope is a referenceto a quote from one staffer who noted that DeRosa and othersenior women on Cuomo's staff wore designer shoes that showedoff their legs, part of an office culture in which a certain strainof hyperfeminized self-presentation was encouraged. "This included somesenior people, including me, but also otherstaffers, people who had worked for herand for others in the Cuomo administration."(DeRosa's spokesperson said, "Otherthan a single text message responding tothe attacks of a former colleague in the pressagainst Melissa, she hasn't uttered a single,solitary word of derision to anyone else inthe administration." LEAD YOUR FORMER BOSS'S REVENGE CAMPAIGN: When Andrew Cuomo was governor, Melissa DeRosa was his right hand. [Extracted from the article]

Whichever clause is used, Justice Samuel Alito's opinion for the Court in Dobbs employed the correct methodology for identifying rights not specified in the Constitution - to determine not what judges prefer they should be but what history shows they in fact were. The 15th Amendment, which barred racial discrimination in voting and was drafted with language about states and congressional power similar to that of the 14th Amendment, underwent its own judicial constriction in defiance of original meaning as the Court extended its "state action" doctrine to that amendment in James v. Bowman (1903). Egregious contortions of the Constitution in major cases are limited to the era before the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, which gave the Court five justices who subscribe to some form of originalism. The scenario of the Court reaching some of these conclusions might seem far-fetched in our time, but that was how the Court viewed same-sex marriage when such a claim came before it in 1972. [Extracted from the article]

Generally, to exercise jurisdiction over a corporation outside of those two states, a plaintiff would have to show that the court had specific jurisdiction over a defendant. Nevertheless, the Court held that a company that transacts nationwide could be haled into any forum across the country regardless of where the company's products were designed, manufactured, or sold, as long as the plaintiff was injured in the forum-a concept akin to general jurisdiction. Further, the appellate court clarified that Daimler and Goodyear "dramatically altered the general jurisdiction analysis by narrowing significantly the constitutional bases upon which a state court could exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation.". [Extracted from the article]

This article explores several cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to review, with a focus on administrative law. The "Big Four" cases include Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assoc., Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The article provides a summary of the arguments and observations made in the case of CFPB v. Community Financial Services Assoc., which centers around whether the CFPB's funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause. The article also briefly mentions the other three cases and their respective issues. Additionally, the article delves into two cases, Loper Bright and Relentless, which challenge the validity of the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, instructs courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute it administers. The cases specifically address the issue of whether agencies can fill statutory silence with their own interpretation. The appellants argue that Chevron violates separation of powers and due process principles, while the government argues that it respects the separation of powers and promotes uniformity in statutory interpretation. The outcome of these cases will have significant implications for the future of Chevron deference. [Extracted from the article]