though she had been temporarily allowed to do so at first.
No? Then how can government refuse to hire Georgetown alumni, so long as Georgetown "teach[es] and promote[s] DEI"?
in prosecution for bomb hoax at church; but spray-painting "the stupid Jew" in the storage locker isn't relevant enough, and thus isn't admissible. (Both the painted items were in defendant's native Kurdish.)
So the Missouri Court of Appeals concludes, in allowing a negligence/design defect case to proceed against Lyft, based on a driver's having been murdered by riders who "fraudulently and anonymously request[ed]" a ride.
That's the correct decision, though I don't think there should even have been a question about it.
largely because the compensatory damages were just $1.
A federal magistrate judge flags the issue, though doesn't purport to resolve it.
"[I]n seeking to hold Cooper Union liable for [students'] expression, [plaintiff] cannot help but say the quiet part loud: sweeping otherwise-protected political expression into the hostility analysis will create pressure on institutions 'to suppress speech to ensure compliance with Title VI,' causing 'regulated entities to adopt restrictive policies in an effort to avoid liability' for a hostile environment."
"It was blamed on a new hire who hadn't 'fully absorbed' the startup's culture."
"Founding-era common law gave officers no authority to make an 'arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in [their] presence.'"
But though other Justices had expressed doubt about Hill before, only Justices Thomas and Alito noted their willingness to grant review in this case.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
