Remove Court Rules Remove Criminal Law Remove Government Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity

SCOTUSBlog

Trump, the indictment contends, created “widespread mistrust … through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud” and then perpetrated three criminal conspiracies to target “a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.”

Court 144
article thumbnail

The Constitutional Abyss: Justices Signal a Desire to Avoid Both Cliffs on Presidential Immunity

JonathanTurley

It has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. The court held ex-President Richard Nixon had such immunity for acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” It was effectively a “Trust us, we’re the government” assurance.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Texas city council member argues retaliatory arrest

SCOTUSBlog

Share The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in the case of a 76-year-old Texas woman , Sylvia Gonzalez, who was arrested on charges that she had violated a state law that prohibits tampering with government records. Gonzalez came to the Supreme Court, which agreed last fall to weigh in.

article thumbnail

Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?

JonathanTurley

At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. I have a legal education.”

Statute 57
article thumbnail

Subjective intent of wrongdoing required to convict doctors under Controlled Substances Act

SCOTUSBlog

The opinion is a victory for physicians prescribing innovative treatments that they believe serve legitimate medical purposes, and it should assuage concerns about a ruling that could have chilled more doctors from prescribing needed pain treatments. None of this is to say that the court has let pill mill doctors off the hook.

article thumbnail

The Supreme Court’s Decision in ZF Automotive et al. v. Luxshare, Ltd.: A U.S. Perspective

Conflict of Laws

The Court ruled that since neither panel was conferred governmental authority, § 1782 discovery would be inappropriate in both instances. Justice Barrett, writing for a unanimous Court, adopted a textual approach to the question.

Statute 52
article thumbnail

Conservative majority hollows out precedent on ineffective-counsel claims in federal court

SCOTUSBlog

Although the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Martinez v. Ryan permitted defendants to raise such claims for the first time in federal court, on Monday the court ruled 6-3 that they cannot develop evidence to support those claims.

Court 145