Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Jamila Hodge, CEO of Equal Justice USA, a national nonprofit focused on racial justice and community safety, argued that the case surrounding Neely’s death is an example of how the criminal ...
The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding criminal procedure, including: Article Three, along with Amendments Five, Six, Eight, and Fourteen. Such cases have come to comprise a substantial portion of the Supreme Court 's docket.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: 23-1122: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done. July 2, 2024 (January 15, 2025) Garland v. VanDerStok: 23-852
Brown v. United States, (Docket Nos. 22-6389 and 22–6640), is a United States Supreme Court case about the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court affirmed both courts of appeals, holding that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.
A US court has dismissed the last remaining federal criminal case against Donald Trump, which alleged that the president-elect illegally retained classified documents. The appeals court approved a ...
Donald Trump will make a virtual appearance in court today for the second hearing in his landmark criminal hush money case – so that a New York judge can warn him about posting evidence on ...
The Court found that mentally retarded persons are not a 'suspect' class of persons (requiring the same level of protection as racial minorities); thus, governments are free to enact almost any legislation or rule to civilly commit them, and the courts will not intervene, short of illegal or ridiculous actions (called 'rational' scrutiny). [4] 14th
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that the burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant, who must show the government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.