JonathanTurley
APRIL 1, 2023
The vagueness problems could be reduced by limiting the scope to adult entertainment settings. Section 2 of the Statute makes it “an offense for a person to perform adult cabaret entertainment,” either “(A) On public property; or (B) in a location where the adult cabaret entertainment could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.”
Constitutional Law Reporter
MAY 1, 2023
In reaching its decision, the Court noted the important distinction between “the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction)” and “nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, which seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times.”
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JUNE 4, 2021
“As such, it is sometimes appropriate for courts to entertain constitutional challenges to statutes or other agency-wide policies even when those challenges were not raised in ad- ministrative proceedings.”. It makes little sense to require litigants to present claims to adjudicators who are powerless to grant the relief requested.
LexForti
JUNE 4, 2021
One of the most vital concerns that a legal practitioner is essentially seen to deal with, that is with respect to any particular dispute or one that has arisen out of a legal relationship between the respective parties subsequently brings into consideration the forum which has/will/have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute.
JonathanTurley
NOVEMBER 24, 2020
In this case, however, the challenged orders and regulations have not been established to be arbitrary, i.e., lacking a rational basis, except for one subpart of one order regarding social distancing at entertainment venues that initially made no exception for families or individuals living in the same household.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 12, 2023
Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this. The States lack Article III standing because this Court’s precedents and the ‘historical experience’ preclude the States’ ‘attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this form.’”
Constitutional Law Reporter
JANUARY 10, 2022
The Fifth Circuit decided to entertain a second interlocutory appeal filed by Mr. Dickson given the overlap in issues between his appeal and the appeal filed by the public-official defendants. 8 suits in state court may be litigants adverse to the petitioners. Private parties who seek to bring S.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
38 
Let's personalize your content