The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that employees are not required to show significant harm in federal discrimination lawsuits involving job transfers. Read More.
Featured Stories
President Biden is expected to veto a resolution disapproving a rule that expands the definition of joint employers under federal labor law. Read More.
On Friday, April 5, 2024, New York City agreed to pay $17.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by two Muslim women forced to remove their religious head coverings for New York Police Department post-arrest photos. Read More.
Recently Featured Dockets
Santos v. Kimmel et al (filed 2/16/24)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Other Legal News
Supreme Court to Hear Starbucks Challenge to Labor Ruling
The New York Times, April 23, 2024
The case, which stems from the firing of seven Starbucks workers in Memphis, seeks to limit the National Labor Relations Board’s ability to obtain a court intervention in labor cases.
Jan. 6 Rioters Should Not Catch a Break From the Supreme Court
The New York Times, April 23, 2024
Will the court go out of its way to disregard statutory language and create ambiguity where none exists?
Justices take up “ghost guns” case for next term
SCOTUSblog, April 22, 2024
Though still far behind the number of cases granted for the next term this time last year, the court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2024-2025 term. The justices agreed to weigh in on a challenge to a rule by... The post Justices take up “ghost guns” case for next term appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
Questions About Assassinations Test the Limits of Trump’s Immunity Claim
The New York Times, April 15, 2024
Three Supreme Court briefs from former military leaders and intelligence officials explore whether presidents may be prosecuted for ordering unlawful killings.
Recent Headlines Confirm the Inadequacy of the Supreme Court’s Reasoning in Trump v. Anderson
Justia's Verdict, April 12, 2024
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how the decentralized nature of the U.S. presidential election system allows individual states to have varying rules that can significantly impact the overall outcome, as illustrated by recent examples from Ohio, Nebraska, and the Supreme Court case Texas v. Pennsylvania. Professor Amar argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, which emphasized the need for uniformity in presidential candidate ballot access across states, was not adequately defended by the Justices, as it failed to address why the Constitution permits such consequential disuniformity in election administration among states.
AO Director Announcement
Supreme Court of the United States, January 23, 2024
