Explore

Supreme Court's Recent Gun Cases Highlight Second Amendment Challenges

Supreme Court's Recent Gun Cases Highlight Second Amendment Challenges

The Supreme Court recently decided two significant Second Amendment cases, United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez, marking the first time since District of Columbia v. Heller that multiple Second Amendment cases were decided in a single term. In Hemani, the court unanimously ruled that the federal government could not prohibit a marijuana user from possessing a firearm, rejecting historical analogues of disarming habitual drunkards. In Wolford, the court struck down a Hawaii law restricting firearms on private property without explicit consent, citing a lack of historical precedent.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Takes Medical Leave

New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Takes Medical Leave

Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald of the New Hampshire Supreme Court has taken a medical leave of absence, as announced by state court officials. The justices of the court have expressed their support and well wishes for Chief Justice MacDonald's recovery. Despite his absence, the court's operations are expected to continue without interruption, with preparations underway for the next session of oral arguments scheduled for September 22.

New Jersey Seeks Supreme Court Review to Uphold Semiautomatic Rifle Ban

New Jersey Seeks Supreme Court Review to Uphold Semiautomatic Rifle Ban

New Jersey has requested the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to pause an order that struck down the state's ban on certain semiautomatic weapons. The state aims to bring the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that similar bans have been upheld by six other circuit courts. The state's attorneys highlighted that nearly thirty appellate judges across the ideological spectrum support New Jersey's stance, suggesting a reasonable possibility that the Supreme Court might agree. The appeals court's ruling also invalidated New Jersey's ban on high-capacity magazines. New Jersey's legal team cited a three-pronged test to justify their request, emphasizing the potential for irreparable harm if the law is not upheld. The state pointed out that the Supreme Court is already considering a related case from Illinois, which could influence the decision to take up New Jersey's case.

Supreme Court Justice Zanin Dismisses Inquiry into Alleged Sale of Judicial Decisions

Supreme Court Justice Zanin Dismisses Inquiry into Alleged Sale of Judicial Decisions

Supreme Court Justice Cristiano Zanin has ordered the dismissal of an inquiry into allegations against Superior Court Justice Og Fernandes regarding the sale of judicial decisions. The decision follows a recommendation from the Procuradoria Geral da República, which found insufficient evidence to continue the investigation under Operation Sisamnes. The inquiry was initially based on information from the phone of a murdered lawyer, Roberto Zampieri, and involved allegations of clandestine negotiations involving businessmen, lawyers, and judges. Despite extensive investigations, including financial audits, no conclusive evidence was found linking Justice Fernandes to any wrongdoing.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald on Medical Leave, Court Prepares for Upcoming Session

New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald on Medical Leave, Court Prepares for Upcoming Session

Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald of the New Hampshire Supreme Court has taken a medical leave of absence, as announced by state court officials. The court has not provided details regarding the nature of MacDonald's condition or the expected duration of his leave. In a joint statement, the other justices of the court expressed their hopes for his full and speedy recovery. Despite his absence, the court's operations are expected to continue without disruption, with preparations underway for the next session of oral arguments scheduled for September 22. MacDonald, appointed in 2021, has a background in law as the former state attorney general and in private practice.

Modern Plea Bargaining System Criticized for Undermining Jury Trials

Modern Plea Bargaining System Criticized for Undermining Jury Trials

Matthew Martens, Partner and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation and Enforcement Practice Group, has authored an op-ed discussing the impact of modern plea bargaining on the constitutional right to a jury trial. He argues that the reliance on plea bargains has largely replaced the public trial process, which was a cornerstone of liberty emphasized by the Founders. Martens highlights recent comments from Supreme Court justices, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, who have expressed concerns about the coercive nature of plea bargains and their effect on the justice system.

Palestinian groups ask Supreme Court to pause order to pay U.S. Intifada victims

Palestinian groups ask Supreme Court to pause order to pay U.S. Intifada victims

The Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization are asking the Supreme Court to pause payment to American victims of Second Intifada attacks in Israel.

On This Day: America Enacted the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

On This Day: America Enacted the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked a pivotal moment in the history of drug regulation in the United States. Introduced by Representative Robert L...

Federal Judge Blocks Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors

Federal Judge Blocks Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors

A federal judge has permanently blocked Michigan from enforcing its ban on conversion therapy for minors. The decision follows an agreement with a Catholic Charities chapter that challenged the ban, arguing it violated free speech rights. The order, signed by Judge Jane M. Beckering, aligns with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found a similar ban in Colorado to be discriminatory based on viewpoint. The Michigan ban had aimed to prevent mental health professionals from engaging in gender conversion therapy through speech, but the court's decision underscores the complexity of balancing free speech with regulatory efforts to protect minors.

1972 Pesticide Law Amendments Under Scrutiny Amid Legislative Debates

1972 Pesticide Law Amendments Under Scrutiny Amid Legislative Debates

The legislative history of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is receiving renewed attention due to a recent Supreme Court decision and ongoing debates over the Farm Bill in the House. These amendments, which significantly rewrote pesticide regulations, have largely remained unchanged for over five decades. The original intent was to balance the benefits of pesticides in agriculture with environmental and public health concerns. However, the 'label is the law' structure has been criticized for potentially shielding manufacturers from accountability, placing the burden of compliance on farmers and applicators. This structure requires users to adhere strictly to complex and lengthy pesticide labels, which can be challenging under variable conditions.

U.S. Courts Overturn President Trump's Mandatory Immigrant Detention Policy, Setting Stage for Supreme Court Review

U.S. Courts Overturn President Trump's Mandatory Immigrant Detention Policy, Setting Stage for Supreme Court Review

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the 7th Circuit, has ruled against the Trump administration's policy of mandatory detention for immigrants. This policy, which required all immigrants picked up by federal agents to be detained without bond, has been overturned. The courts determined that immigrants not caught at the border are entitled to a bond hearing to assess whether they should remain in detention. This decision affects jurisdictions across the southern border, where many immigrants are held. The rulings come after the Department of Homeland Security had expanded the mandatory detention policy beyond those caught at the border. The issue is now likely to be addressed by the Supreme Court, as appellate courts across the country have been divided on the matter.

Supreme Court to Decide on ERISA Case Impacting Retirement Plans

Supreme Court to Decide on ERISA Case Impacting Retirement Plans

Supreme Court to Decide on ERISA Case Impacting Retirement Plans