Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare.
“Despite Act 10 being upheld repeatedly by state and federal courts, an activist Dane County judge decided to issue a ruling suddenly deciding Wisconsin's law is unconstitutional. We will appeal ...
The law, which came to be known as Act. 10, took effect in June 2011. It ended the ability of public-sector unions to negotiate over any issues other than raises, and those raises were capped at ...
Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Justices Rehnquist and White. Scalia criticized the majority for essentially legalizing discrimination: The Court today completes the process of converting [Title VII] from a guarantee that race or sex will not be the basis for employment determinations, to a guarantee that it often will. Ever so subtly ...
Bernard Witkin's Summary of California Law, a legal treatise popular with California judges and lawyers. The Constitution of California is the foremost source of state law. . Legislation is enacted within the California Statutes, which in turn have been codified into the 29 California Co
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and ...
Since at least 2009, when a panel of three federal judges ordered California to reduce its dangerously overcrowded prisons, the Golden State has been trying to reform its criminal justice system.
Justice Rehnquist, in a dissent joined by White, argued that it is unlikely that Congress would have promulgated § 244(a)(1) without the corresponding provisions of §§ 244(c)(1–2). Therefore, the provisions are not severable from one another, and holding one unconstitutional requires invalidating the other.