On Tuesday, February 18, 2020, United States District Court Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas denied Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging the National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA"). Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications equipment maker, challenged the constitutionality of Section 889 of the NDAA, which prevents federal agencies and their contractors from utilizing Huawei's equipment and services. Judge Mazzant granted the U.S. Government's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Congress acted appropriately within its powers. Read More.
Featured Story
Recently Featured Dockets
Soule et al v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. et al (filed 2/12/20)
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Lessig v. The New York Times et al (filed 1/13/20)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
The Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom et al (filed 12/30/19)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Lydia Olson et al v. State of California et al (filed 12/30/19)
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Western States Trucking Association v. Xavier Becerra, et al (filed 12/19/19)
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc., et al v. Xavier Becerra (filed 12/17/19)
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Other Legal News
In Case on Wealth Test for Green Cards, a Scathing Sotomayor Dissent
The New York Times, February 22, 2020
The vote was 5 to 4, with the Supreme Court’s conservatives in the majority.
Florida’s Voting-Rights Fight Could Tip the 2020 Election
The New York Times, February 22, 2020
The state’s voters said 1.4 million ex-felons should be allowed to vote. It’s now up to the courts to protect their rights.
Argument preview: Calling (PLRA) strikes
SCOTUSblog, February 19, 2020
In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which tightened up prisoners’ access to federal civil litigation in many ways. The statute was written hurriedly, and rarely does a year go by without a Supreme Court decision addressing some issue of its interpretation. This term’s case is about the PLRA’s “three strikes” provision, 28…
Kansas v. Glover and Conditional Irrelevance
Justia's Verdict, February 12, 2020
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses the concept of “conditional irrelevance”—which she first identified in a law review article in 2001—and explains why the concept is useful for understanding the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Glover. Through the lens of conditional irrelevance, Colb explains why the knowledge of one fact (that the owner of the vehicle in that case lacked a valid license) should not itself provide police reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
Chief Justice’s Impeachment Handbook: Determined Minimalism
The New York Times, February 10, 2020
The restrained approach of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to what he called his “ill-defined responsibilities” did not please liberals. But it insulated him from combustible confrontations.
Press Release Regarding Justice Ginsburg
Supreme Court of the United States, November 23, 2019
