Explore

Supreme Court Considers State vs. Federal Law in Eminent Domain Attorney Fee Disputes

Supreme Court Considers State vs. Federal Law in Eminent Domain Attorney Fee Disputes

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether state or federal law should govern the payment of attorneys' fees to property owners in condemnation cases involving natural gas companies. The specific case before the justices involves North Dakota landowners who settled a condemnation dispute with WBI Energy Transmission Inc. The core question is whether these landowners should receive attorneys' fees under North Dakota's laws concerning just compensation. This case has broader implications for situations where private companies, rather than government entities, utilize eminent domain to acquire land for their projects. The Court's decision is also expected to resolve a circuit split that currently exists, particularly with the Eighth Circuit, regarding this legal issue.

On This Day in 1968, the Supreme Court Struck Down an Evolution Ban

On This Day in 1968, the Supreme Court Struck Down an Evolution Ban

The legal battle over teaching evolution in American public schools has a long and contentious history, deeply intertwined with religious and cultu...

Supreme Court Declines to Update Insanity Defense Model, Retaining 183-Year-Old Legal Theory

Supreme Court Declines to Update Insanity Defense Model, Retaining 183-Year-Old Legal Theory

The Supreme Court, in the 2020 case *Kahler v. Kansas*, declined an opportunity to update the legal model of the mind used in insanity defenses, effectively upholding an 183-year-old theory. The Court ruled 6-3 that due process does not require states to excuse a defendant who could not distinguish right from wrong. This decision means that states like Kansas can limit mental illness as a defense only if it negates intent, rather than considering a broader inability to appreciate wrongfulness. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, found the historical record on insanity defenses too mixed to mandate a change. This adherence to the M’Naghten rules, established in 1843, maintains a simplified view of the human mind in legal contexts, often clashing with modern psychiatric understanding. The issue gained renewed attention with the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, where a jury deadlocked on whether a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis could be held criminally responsible under existing leg...

Justice Alito's New Book Explores Originalism and Judicial Philosophy

Justice Alito's New Book Explores Originalism and Judicial Philosophy

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has released a new book, 'So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country (2026),' positioning him as a leading public intellectual on the Supreme Court, similar to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In his book, Justice Alito discusses various topics including originalism, textualism in statutory interpretation, the Catholic intellectual tradition, the role of judges, religious liberty, and threats to the Constitution. A key theme is his commitment to originalism, even if it means overturning long-standing precedents he views as 'bad law,' such as Roe v. Wade or United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which dealt with birthright citizenship. He also rejects the idea of judicial restraint when the Supreme Court has wrongly deferred to the political process, citing cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States as examples of tragic results. Conversely, he criticizes judicial activism seen in cases like Dred Scott v. Sanford or Lochner v. New ...

Supreme Court Justices Question Inmate's Recourse in Medical Negligence Case

Supreme Court Justices Question Inmate's Recourse in Medical Negligence Case

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments in the case of Nielsen v. Watanabe, which centers on an inmate, Kekai Watanabe, who alleges that a prison paramedic, Francis Nielsen, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Watanabe sustained severe injuries in a prison fight and claims he received inadequate medical care, leading to a fractured coccyx and ongoing pain. The district court initially dismissed his claim, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed this decision, stating that Watanabe's claim was similar to the precedent set in Carlson v. Green. During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concern about the legal recourse available to inmates in such situations, particularly in cases of severe medical negligence or death. She questioned whether injunctive relief or claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) would provide sufficient remedies if Bivens claims were limited or overruled. Lucas Walker, re...

William Howard Taft's Public Service Career Explored, Highlighting Progressive and Conservative Stances

William Howard Taft's Public Service Career Explored, Highlighting Progressive and Conservative Stances

William Howard Taft, the 27th U.S. president, is being re-examined for his complex political identity, which blended both progressive and conservative ideals throughout his extensive public service career. Taft's tenure as president, from 1909 to 1913, was only a fraction of his contributions, which included roles as U.S. solicitor general, federal judge, governor-general of the Philippines, and secretary of war. After his presidency, he achieved his lifelong ambition by becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1921, serving until his death in 1930. Despite being often viewed as a conservative foil to progressive figures like Theodore Roosevelt, Taft supported many progressive goals, such as civil service reform, lower tariffs, stronger financial regulations, anti-monopoly legislation, higher taxes on the wealthy, and women's suffrage. His administration vigorously pursued antitrust suits against major corporations like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel, and he championed the Sixteenth Amendment, which est...

Supreme Court Declines Review of NLRB's Adjudicative Precedent Interpretation

Supreme Court Declines Review of NLRB's Adjudicative Precedent Interpretation

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a petition in the case of Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. NLRB. The employer, Rieth-Riley Construction Co., had argued that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly allowed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reinterpret one of its own long-standing precedents without independently analyzing the precedent's original meaning. The case centered on the NLRB's 1958 decision in Retail Associates, which governs withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining units. Rieth-Riley contended that the NLRB effectively rewrote this rule by interpreting 'the agreed-upon date' for bargaining to begin as 'any agreed-upon date,' thereby allowing a union to withdraw even when no specific bargaining date had been set. The employer argued that this interpretation nullified part of the original rule and contradicted the text of the Board's own precedent, and that the Sixth Circuit wrongly deferred to the agency's reading.

International Finance Corporation and Inditex Launch $400 Million Fund to Decarbonize Fashion Supply Chains

International Finance Corporation and Inditex Launch $400 Million Fund to Decarbonize Fashion Supply Chains

International Finance Corporation and Inditex Launch $400 Million Fund to Decarbonize Fashion Supply Chains

Supreme Court sounds ready to further limit prisoner lawsuits

Supreme Court sounds ready to further limit prisoner lawsuits

The Supreme Court could further curtail the already limited ability to seek damages from a federal employee for violating someone's rights.

Supreme Court Considers Limiting or Barring Lawsuits Against Federal Agents for Constitutional Violations

Supreme Court Considers Limiting or Barring Lawsuits Against Federal Agents for Constitutional Violations

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether to significantly narrow or entirely eliminate the ability of individuals to sue federal agents for monetary damages when their constitutional rights have been violated. This issue was central to arguments heard in a case involving a federal prison inmate in Hawaii who suffered a broken tailbone and sued a prison nurse for cruel and unusual punishment. The Court's conservative justices are divided on whether to merely limit such lawsuits, upholding past rulings but going no further, or to overturn the precedent set by the 1971 *Bivens* decision, which first authorized such constitutional claims. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh have indicated a preference for a more cautious, incremental approach, while other conservative justices have previously suggested ending such lawsuits entirely. The outcome could have significant implications for accountability of federal agents, including immigration agents.

Mondelez International Shifts Strategy Towards Volume-Led Growth Amidst Market Share Gains

Mondelez International Shifts Strategy Towards Volume-Led Growth Amidst Market Share Gains

Mondelez International Shifts Strategy Towards Volume-Led Growth Amidst Market Share Gains

Death toll from migrant boat found with bodies on board south of Greece increases to 14

Death toll from migrant boat found with bodies on board south of Greece increases to 14

Greek authorities have recovered 13 bodies from a migrant boat found south of Crete