The disgraced former producer will get a new trial in the sex crime case against him in New York after the Court of Appeals found that the trial court should not have allowed certain testimony against him. Read More.
Featured Stories
On Wednesday, April 24, 2024, President Joe Biden signed legislation requiring Chinese tech firm ByteDance to divest itself of the TikTok app or face a ban in the United States. Read More.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that employees are not required to show significant harm in federal discrimination lawsuits involving job transfers. 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
Nixon, Trump and What Justice for All Means in America
The New York Times, May 1, 2024
Here we are, watching the narrow, tawdry version of the trial the nation ought to have had 50 years ago.
The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
The New York Times, May 1, 2024
The Biden administration is arguing that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban violates a federal law on emergency treatment.
Supreme Court takes up RICO and veterans “benefit of the doubt” cases
SCOTUSblog, April 29, 2024
In a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference last week, the justices granted review in four cases – adding those cases to the lone four cases that they have agreed to take up for the 2024-25 term since early January. Monday’s grants... The post Supreme Court takes up RICO and veterans “benefit of the doubt” cases appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
Amid Cases on Abortion and Trump, Roberts Reflects on Supreme Court’s Work
The New York Times, April 29, 2024
Oral arguments serve a crucial role at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said last week at Georgetown University. But they are not always what they seem.
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
