Constitutional Law Reporter
NOVEMBER 28, 2022
The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Cruz v. Decisions in all of the cases are expected before the Court’s term ends in June. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Please check back for updates.
JonathanTurley
MAY 25, 2021
Courts in Arizona , Kansas and Texas have also ruled against these laws. Thus, Arkansas seeks not only to avoid contracting with companies that refuse to do business with Israel. It also seeks to avoid contracting with anyone who supports or promotes such activity. There are good-faith objections to the BDS movement.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
JonathanTurley
JULY 4, 2022
Below is my column in the Hill on overheated rhetoric of revolution that seems to have overtaken our public discourse, particularly with regard to the Supreme Court. This week, Arizona Democrats pushed a “ F–k the Fourth Event” and told people to “Bring comfortable shoes, water, lawn chairs, posters, and your anger.”
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
AUGUST 4, 2021
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. BP p.l.c. , Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the companies, one by the U.S. United States. United States , No. 1:21-cv-01560 (D. filed June 9, 2021). filed June 9, 2021).
JonathanTurley
NOVEMBER 3, 2021
The law is notably neutral on content. That is a key distinction given prior Supreme Court rulings like Reed v Town of Gilbert. In that case, the court ruled unanimously that an Arizona ordinance was unconstitutional. Roof signs; 12. Signs containing moving parts.
JonathanTurley
JULY 9, 2022
Whether such state enforcement is constitutional will be hashed out in the courts in light of the 2012 decision in Arizona v. On immigration, however, it became more difficult just ten years ago with the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States.
JonathanTurley
FEBRUARY 5, 2024
The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. They have often found the courts closed to them. if not earlier.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content