A Quite Unusual 5-4 Split on the Supreme Court
Three opinions, no blockbusters, but an odd (and unprecedented?) 5-4 split - and interesting order on Congressional subpoenas.
Three opinions, no blockbusters, but an odd (and unprecedented?) 5-4 split - and interesting order on Congressional subpoenas.
So concluded the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Like many such orders, the Governor's order suspended until April 30 all "surgical and invasive procedures that are elective and non-urgent," which included abortions.
The law made it impossible for many law-abiding citizens to buy ammunition.
Reversible error, concludes a California appellate panel.
He argued Duncan v. Louisiana and Apodaca v. Oregon
Spaceman, fake subpoenas, and the right to a basic minimum education.
"Head-to-head [Daily Fantasy Sports] contests are predominately determined by the skill of the participants in using their knowledge of statistics and the relevant sport to select a fantasy team that will outperform the opponent."
A "drafting snafu" with the Legislature's concurring resolution, which endorsed the Governor's initial emergency order, is casting many things in doubt.
The case was a hate crime hoax perpetrated by a SUNY Albany student.
A National Academy of Sciences report suggests not, but that report gets some basic facts wrong
"any patient who, based on the treating physician's medical judgment, would be past the legal limit for an abortion in Texas ... on April 22, 2020" (the date until which the Texas restrictions suspend abortions) remains able to get an abortion, despite the restrictions.
"This sign went up this morning at the exit from the Portland bus/train terminal, where Amtrak still runs."
Tasteless sarcasm, hydrofluorocarbons, and indefinite detention.
That violates the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and probably the freedom of assembly and association.
even as part of a general restriction on "not immediately necessary" surgeries and procedures, aimed at preserving medical personal protective equipment during the epidemic.
The Sunshine Act is an example of good intentions gone awry – let’s bid it good riddance
Because applications for stay decided without oral argument are (in my experience) always unsigned, per curiam decisions.
Impermissible collaboration on a take-home exam, and subsequent lying about it, kept one law graduate from admission to the Ohio Bar.
An interesting and detailed analysis by Prof. Alan Rozenshtein at Lawfare.
Joshua and Rachel Kleinfeld offer some ideas about how to avoid a replay of the Wisconsin mess
Eight 5th Circuit judges already found that 18 U.S.C. 922(o) would be unconstitutional with respect to the local possession of bump stocks
But the ban might still be blocked as to women who are far enough along in their pregnancies that delaying an abortion would make it illegal.
The statute that authorizes the bump stock regulation lacks a jurisdictional hook
It is anachronistic to retroactively graft modern Supreme Court precedents onto Progressive Era Precedents
Michael, Will, Orin, and I, on constitutional law, contract law, insurance law, and more.
Basic statistics once again eludes mainstream journalism
Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather offers a helpful explainer laying out the issues in the SCOTUS and SCOWIS decisions on the Wisconsin primary elections.
It can work well in some circumstances, but so far does not seem like an adequate substitute for conventional classroom instruction for large classes.
"The Commission does not ... act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism. plus an interesting discussion of the FCC's hoax rules.
Would the state have a compelling interest to forcibly separate families to flatten the curve?
21 High School teams from across the country presented oral arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Not such "a winner" after all.
The Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses give Congress the power to prohibit the possession of certain items