Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. was a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and several other organizations against the National Security Agency (NSA), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and other named individuals, alleging mass surveillance of Wikipedia users carried out by the NSA.
The idea of court expansion only recently gained more popularity among some lawmakers and some legal experts, particularly on the left. But it’s worth noting, court packing is not a one-party issue.
Wisconsin's court system reported an attack by hackers in March, a cybersecurity threat briefly forced Alaska's courts offline in 2021, and Texas' top criminal and civil courts were hit with a ...
This 18-month-long, 300-page, comprehensive study looks at the legal problems low and moderate-income residents face in the state’s civil court system.
MDL cases occur when "civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts." [1] In order to efficiently process cases that could involve hundreds (or thousands) of plaintiffs in dozens of different federal courts that all share common issues, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decides whether cases should be "centralized" under the ...
These federal circuit courts consisted of two justices from the Supreme Court of the United States and one district court judge. [8] In 1891, Congress created the existing system of United States courts of appeals, which hear appeals from United States district courts within limited geographic areas. [9]
The problem, it would seem, is that these modest reforms also try to increase density in areas where people are most sensitive to it. Getting a little bit more housing comes at a huge political cost.
Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).The doctrine holds that "the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them."