Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in ...
The Oyez Project is an unofficial online multimedia archive website for the Supreme Court of the United States. It was initiated by the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law and now also sponsored by Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute and Justia. The website has emphasis on the court's audio of oral arguments.
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 Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization: 24-20 24-151
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Case No. 21-70004 (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) Holding; A Texas prison execution protocol banning all spiritual and religious advisors from being in an execution chamber, or touching a prisoner, during an execution is likely to violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act's religious protections.
Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case pertaining to a provision of Title 18 of the United States Code. In the case, the Court settled a circuit split regarding the reach of the federal aggravated identity theft statute. [1] [failed verification]
Ultimately, Young instituted a federal habeas action. The court determined that the Community Protection Act was civil and, therefore, it could not violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the case turned on whether the Act was punitive "as applied" to Young. [5] 5th
Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.
Get breaking news and the latest headlines on business, entertainment, politics, world news, tech, sports, videos and much more from AOL