The Crime Report
DECEMBER 8, 2022
A three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals published a pair of opinions Tuesday holding that two people can be charged with murder for brutalizing a child 25 years ago — even though they had already been convicted of child abuse for the same act of violence in the late ‘90s. David Tripp, Jr.
JURIST
JANUARY 4, 2021
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina ruled Thursday that people who are or have been in a dating relationship with a same-sex partner are equally protected against domestic violence as persons in opposite-sex relationships placed in a similar situation. While relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
JANUARY 25, 2022
Share For obvious reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to grant certiorari in a pair of cases challenging race-based affirmative action in higher education drew major headlines. University of North Carolina. Less well noticed was a curious procedural feature of the second case, Students for Fair Admissions v.
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 3, 2021
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, ruling that the 50% tariff was part of an ongoing plan of action that Trump had properly initiated earlier. The non-profit has now also filed a petition in a challenge to the University of North Carolina that it hopes can serve as a companion to the Harvard case.
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 31, 2020
And I had their ear, explaining Supreme Court decisions on a regular basis over many years. In June, the court ruled in R.G. & Darius Swann helped transform the promise of Brown into a court-enforced mandate. The three television networks had enormous influence. Harris Funder Homes v. EEOC that it does.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 27, 2023
Share In a major election-law decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. Roberts agreed that the court did have the power to decide the case on the merits.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Northern Plains Resource Council v. Army Corps of Engineers , No.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content