Search

The article discusses the declining integrity of democratic institutions and the encroachment of judicial power over political decision-making. Topics discussed include the politicization of the legal system, the cultural and moral decline within Western democracies, and the vulnerability of these societies to external threats due to internal fragmentation.

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]

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 Supreme Court is set to consider whether to overrule the Chevron doctrine in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Chevron holds that courts must defer to federal agency interpretations of statutes if they are not inconsistent with the statute's clear terms and are reasonable. The cases involve a dispute over whether the National Marine Fisheries Service can require commercial fishing vessel owners to pay for monitors to gather data for conservation purposes. The decision to overrule Chevron could have significant implications for American law and government, potentially undermining previous court decisions and casting doubt on Congress's ability to delegate statutory interpretation to expert agencies. The Court may also consider alternative approaches to Chevron, such as a sliding-scale approach to deference or a rigorous applicability test. The major questions doctrine and the doctrine of stare decisis are also relevant to the debate. [Extracted from the article]

The article delves into the case of Abdul Nacer Benbrika, a convicted terrorist released on extended supervision after a High Court ruling deemed the cancellation of his citizenship unconstitutional. It explores the implications of using citizenship revocation as a tool in managing threats, raises questions about the separation of powers and discusses the government's response, proposing new laws for citizenship cancellation by a judge.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's important rulings in the first half of 2023, covering cases related to affirmative action, student loans, religious beliefs, redrawing congressional districts, and transgender protections. It discusses the growing criticism from the Left towards the Court and some calls to expand the number of justices to achieve a more liberal composition.

The article focuses on an essay by Kelly Meggs, the former Florida leader of the Oath Keepers currently imprisoned for his involvement in January 6th events, reflecting on his experiences and the broader implications of his story. Topics include Meggs' personal reflections on resilience and patriotism, the historical significance of Independence Day in his narrative, and his views on the constitutional principles upheld by the Founding Fathers.

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 reports that the analysis of the existence of judicial power ought not to depend in the first instance on whose ox is gored. Topics include examines during the 1960 and 1970, so-called conservatives condemned the Supreme Court for overstepping its legitimate bounds and make law, instead of merely applying it, with political effects far beyond the appropriate limits of judicial authority.

In many courts, the application of the apex doctrine means that the deposing party has the burden of proving that the apex witness's deposition is necessary. How Courts Use the Apex Doctrine The apex doctrine surfaces when a party seeks a protective order to prevent the deposition of a high-level corporate employee, such as a CEO. A year later, both the Georgia Supreme Court and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to formally adopt the doctrine. [Extracted from the article]

The examination of the interaction between the institutions in American state politics has long suffered from a dearth of data. This is the case despite the importance of understanding the separation of powers in the states and the specific effects on policy making and policy outcomes. In this article, I introduce a new, original dataset of court-curbing introductions by state legislators. The data include information on more than 1,200 state legislative bills that would restrict the power of the courts. In this article, I provide descriptive statistics for the data, employ the data to test hypotheses, and explain how this data may be used in future scholarly research on the interactions between state legislators and state courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner has proposed a bill that aims to protect civil liberties more effectively than the Liberal government's legislation against digital abuse, hate, and pornography. The bill would grant courts greater authority to identify online harassers and consider internet-specific harassment techniques during sentencing. It would also criminalize the non-consensual sharing of fake nude images and require online platforms to safeguard children. While the Conservatives have not released the full text of their bill, Rempel Garner has outlined some of the requirements for providers, albeit vaguely. The Liberal government's previous attempt at legislation in this area faced international criticism and struggled to define online harm. [Extracted from the article]

The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) has praised the Telangana High Court's order directing the Assembly Speaker to address the petitions seeking the disqualification of defected MLAs. BRS leader T. Harish Rao called the verdict a blow to the ruling Congress and a victory for democracy. The court has instructed the Speaker to announce the schedule for hearing the petitions within four weeks. The petitions had questioned the Speaker's inaction on disqualification petitions filed against three BRS MLAs who joined the Congress. The court had reserved its decision after a lengthy hearing on the constitutional aspects of its powers to direct the Speaker. [Extracted from the article]

Farva may have filed the appeal, but it was still the court's party.(She can, however, cry if she wants to.) The case is Oasis Legal Finance v. Chodes, 7th Cir. When the court convened for the oral argument, Farva was a no-show.The court was not happy. Worst of all in the court's view, Farva seemed oblivious of thefundamental truth that "it is the court's power, not that ofcounsel, to decide when a case requires argument.". [Extracted from the article]

The counsel for the Balochistan government on Tuesday informed a five-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, that the presidential reference regarding the Reko Diq agreement was maintainable because it was a matter of public interest. Additional Attorney General Chaudhary Amir Rehman also told the court that the bench had asked the parties to convey to the ICSID to stay its proceeding as the matter was being heard by the apex court in Pakistan. Ahmed stated that the court was informed that the matter was pending before the ICSID but former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry-led bench did not stop and give the judgment wherein the whole deal was declared as void in January 2013. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the issue of the administrative state in the United States, which refers to the power of administrative agencies to make and enforce regulations outside of the constitutional avenues of legislative and judicial power. The author argues that this administrative power is unconstitutional and harmful, as it shifts legislative power away from elected representatives and diminishes the value of voting. The article also highlights the evolving threat of administrative power, including sub-administrative pressure and inducement, which can be used to impose regulations that cannot be achieved through traditional means. The author calls for a new civil-rights movement to push back against the administrative state and restore constitutional government. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the American freedom and self-government dealt by the Supreme Court of U.S. Topics include the role of Democrats to bring the Supreme Court to heel, reasons of judicial despotism found in U.S., and inexorable march of tradition and timidity on the part of the government's other branches has given this pack of conservative apparatchiks.

Jurisdiction stripping - the kind that doesn't lead to a military takeover - requires the Supreme Court to willingly relinquish some of its power but does not reform or incentivize the court to relinquish that power. But imagine this: Instead of starting with jurisdiction stripping, add 20 justices to the court who believe that jurisdiction stripping is constitutional - and then pass legislation not subject to judicial review. As history also suggests, such progressive legislation would face eventual judicial resistance - unless Congress were to strip the Supreme Court (and other courts) of its authority to decide on the constitutionality of that law. [Extracted from the article]

Federal Courts--Justiciability--Ninth Circuit Holds That Developing And Supervising Plan To Mitigate Anthropogenic Climate Change Would Exceed Remedial Powers of Article III Court.--Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. [...]

Elon Musk's social media platform, X, has been ordered to go dark in Brazil by the country's Supreme Court. This decision has sparked a global debate about the regulation of free speech on the internet. Many politicians, celebrities, and experts have reacted to the court's efforts to police online content. The ban has left X's 20 million users in Brazil searching for alternative platforms. The immediate response from Musk was to criticize Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who issued the order. The extent of the blackout is still unclear, but thousands of users reported problems accessing the site. The ban has also affected political campaigns in Brazil, as many candidates relied on X as a campaign tool. The move to shut down X is part of a broader trend of countries holding technology companies accountable for their online content. While the ban has received praise from some supporters of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, it has been condemned by conservatives who accuse Moraes of censorship. The majority of the accounts that were ordered to be taken down belonged to supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The ban has raised concerns about the lasting effects on internet users and has been described as an extreme judicial decision. [Extracted from the article]

Elon Musk's social network, X, has been ordered to go dark in Brazil by the nation's top court after Musk refused to name a legal representative for the platform. The Supreme Court's decision has sparked reactions from politicians, celebrities, and experts in internet law. Many of X's 20 million users in Brazil have had to turn to other platforms following the suspension. The ban has received both praise and condemnation, with conservatives criticizing the judge for attacking their cause and supporters of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva praising the judge for cleaning up the internet. The order has raised concerns about censorship and lasting effects on internet users in Brazil. [Extracted from the article]

Thailand's largest opposition party, the People's Party, plans to limit the power of the Constitutional Court, which recently dissolved the popular Move Forward party and removed the prime minister from office. The People's Party aims to introduce legislation that would make it more difficult for the court to dissolve political parties and reduce penalties for politicians. Critics argue that the court's actions undermine democracy and serve the interests of the pro-royalist establishment. The new opposition party, named after the group that ended absolute monarchy in 1932, will prioritize court reforms over changes to the controversial lese majeste law. [Extracted from the article]

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has stated that it will not tolerate any reduction or restriction in the powers of waqf boards. The AIMPLB argues that any changes to the Waqf Act, 2013 that alter the nature of waqf properties or make it easier for the government or individuals to take control of them will not be acceptable. The AIMPLB asserts that waqf properties are donations made by Muslim philanthropists for religious and charitable purposes, and that the government has enacted the Waqf Act to regulate them. The government is reportedly planning to introduce a bill that would amend the Waqf Act, but the AIMPLB argues that such amendments would be unconstitutional and violate the Shariat Application Act, 1937. AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi has also accused the Modi government of wanting to take control of waqf properties and interfere with religious freedom through these proposed amendments. The government has approved around 40 amendments to the Waqf Act, and the amendment bill is expected to be presented in Parliament soon. If passed, these amendments would significantly change the management and regulation of waqf properties in India, aligning the system with practices in other Islamic countries where no single entity has such extensive powers. [Extracted from the article]

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.)

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 DOJ warned a ruling against them could "destabilize" the federal government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is pushing for a fast judicial reform in Mexico, which has raised concerns among critics who fear it could weaken checks on the ruling party. The peso has been negatively affected by this news, weakening by 1.1% in New York. President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum also supports the reform but believes it should be widely discussed by law schools and judiciary workers. The president emphasized the importance of true rule of law and denied any involvement in corruption. The peso's decline since Sheinbaum's election has raised concerns that AMLO's reforms may be pushed through before she takes office in October. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court recently made a decision that has made it more difficult to challenge racial gerrymandering. In a 6-3 decision, the justices reversed a lower court ruling that had struck down South Carolina's 2022 congressional map as a racial gerrymander. The redistricting, which involved moving Democratic-leaning Black voters to a different district, was deemed permissible because it was likely driven by partisan political motives rather than race. Critics argue that this decision sets a regressive new standard and undermines the 14th Amendment's original purpose of protecting Black voters. [Extracted from the article]

The UK government plans to begin sending asylum seekers to Rwanda in late July, pending the outcome of the general election. The controversial policy is part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's tough stance on migration. The UK's highest court had previously ruled the plan unlawful, but legislation passed earlier this year declared Rwanda a safe country for migrants. Critics argue that the policy violates international human rights laws. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Tax Magazine (2392-7011) is the property of Editura Solomon 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 focuses on Court's order is stunning has included in the dissenting opinion of liberal the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, this sentiment underscores the significance in the advancement of pro-life legislation has passed in Texas and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Topics include the persons involved in the abortion are further subject to an injunction for any future attempts to perform an illegal abortion.

The article suggests steps that state courts, state officials, and organizers can take to protect state institutions. Courts have leveraged their inherent case-management powers-the procedures that shepherd lawsuits through the process of judicial review-to force transparency on the Executive and to hold it to account. Courts have flexibly and responsively assimilated new assertions of executive power in ways that have restructured federal court doctrine and practice and emboldened federal courts. [Extracted from the article]

The high number of claims brought by air passengers has led to a situation that is close to the collapse of the commercial courts. The legislator, in its effort to alleviate the burden on judicial bodies, has for some time been promoting the use of extrajudicial mechanisms without having obtained the expected results. In an attempt to lighten this burden, unfinished legislative reforms have been undertaken, which have not modified the regulatory framework, but which aspire to do so. On this path there are four pieces of a certain entity that should fit together in order to reach a successful landing for air transport claims. On the journey towards this landing, the legislator introduced with the adoption of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, that has already been modified with the reforms to the COVID-19, the first regulatory step towards the referral of these claims to the extra-judicial sphere. The second piece, essential for the functioning of the first, is the approval of the Ministerial Order with the development of the procedure, which is still pending. In addition to these two, there are two draft bills that affect the LEC, which would make this out-of-court procedure compulsory in any case, and the LOPJ, which returns these actions to the courts of first instance. The meaning of these reforms, the difficult regulatory framework they generate and their critical review is dealt with in this work, which concludes with specific proposals for reform that could be taken into account by the legislator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Chief Justice John Roberts has declined a request from Democratic senators to meet and discuss ethics controversies surrounding the US Supreme Court. The request was made in light of recent revelations that flags associated with right-wing causes were flown at Justice Samuel Alito's residences. Roberts also refused to question Alito's decision to participate in pending cases involving Donald Trump and the January 6 Capitol riot. Roberts cited separation of powers and judicial independence as reasons for rejecting the meeting, stating that it is rare for a sitting chief justice to meet with legislators. The court is currently considering whether Trump is immune from criminal charges related to the 2020 election and is also reviewing an appeal by a man charged in connection with the Capitol assault. [Extracted from the article]

The Swiss parliament's commission investigating the collapse of Credit Suisse will release its report in December. The commission has been examining whether authorities acted appropriately during the crisis that led to the government-arranged takeover by UBS Group AG. The report is expected to provide insight into the decision-making process leading up to the takeover, and the commission heard testimonies from over 60 witnesses, including ministers, financial supervisors, and representatives from Credit Suisse and UBS. The report will be presented to lawmakers during the parliament's winter session in December. [Extracted from the article]

Former Prime Minister Imran Khan has been granted bail by a Pakistani court in a case where he is accused of legalizing billions of rupees from a business tycoon while in power in 2019. However, Khan will not be released as he is currently serving a sentence in other cases. The National Accountability Bureau alleges that Khan and his wife obtained land from a real estate developer in exchange for legalizing funds worth $240 million. This decision provides some relief for Khan, who has faced legal and political challenges since his removal from power in 2022. Khan is currently in jail after being found guilty in four different cases, although his conviction in two of these cases has been suspended by courts. Despite being ineligible to participate in national elections, Khan's party-backed candidates unexpectedly won the most parliamentary seats in the February elections, which were marred by allegations of rigging. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a bill before the Australian Senate that would give Australian courts the power to break up large corporations that engage in bad behavior. Currently, Australian authorities do not have this power, unlike courts in the United States and elsewhere. The proposed bill would enable courts to break up firms that misuse their market power. The author argues that while divestment is not the best solution in every case, it is a useful tool that can keep big businesses accountable. The article also mentions examples of divestment orders in the United States and highlights the effectiveness of such measures in improving competition. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court recently debated whether guns equipped with bump stocks should be classified as machine guns. The justices focused on technical aspects of bump stocks and the interpretation of federal law, but failed to address the real-world consequences of allowing bump stocks, which can turn semiautomatic assault rifles into effectively automatic weapons. The author criticizes the court for its reliance on textualism, a theory of statutory interpretation that ignores legislative intent and purpose. The article argues that this approach is detrimental to common-sense interpretation and particularly concerning when it comes to laws intended to prevent harm to people. [Extracted from the article]