In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
False Claims Act Insights - Railroaded! How to Approach the Twin Tracks of Parallel Proceedings
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 334: Listen and Learn -- Standards of Review (Con Law)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 160: Listen and Learn -- Standards of Review (Con Law)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 295: Listen and Learn -- Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 117: Listen and Learn -- Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Day 11 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-the Fair Process Doctrine
Webinar: Investigating and Resolving Sexual Assaults on Campus
Former Solicitor General Ted Olson Discusses 2013's Biggest Supreme Court Case—His.
Across the country each June, communities come together to celebrate Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month. This month of events honors the 1969 Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan while also...more
On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its monumental decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al.; Case No. 14-556, holding that state bans of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. Specifically, the...more
The Impact of National Same-Sex Marriage for Employers - Why it matters: How will employers feel the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges? The landmark ruling that the Fourteenth...more
What an exciting week! I’m pleased to share the following alert regarding DOMA that my colleagues Lisa Cukier, Christine Fletcher and Peter Zupcofska put together today for clients and friends of our firm. As we celebrate...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decisions in two same-sex marriage cases. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, the Court ruled that the proponents of a popular voter initiative that reversed...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The decision in United States v. Windsor means that same-sex couples who are married under state law...more
The Supreme Court has held that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is unconstitutional. DOMA defined “marriage” and “spouse” to the exclusion of same-sex partners for purposes of federal law....more
This morning, the Supreme Court issued two historic rulings on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The first ruling, in a 5-4 decision, struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the federal Defense of...more
Windsor v. United States - Issue: Can the federal government define marriage? Holding: No. Loser: The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, was...more
On June 26 the United States Supreme Court held the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act prevented a marriage between two individuals of the same sex from being recognized for...more
Unless you are on a news media embargo, you have probably heard the news by now. The United States Supreme Court today issued a watershed ruling regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law barring the federal...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of opinions favorable to the gay rights movement, ruling that married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from...more
As the 2012 term of the U. S. Supreme Court comes to a close, the Justices left the most politically and emotionally charged decisions for last. On June 26, 2013, the Court handed down its decision striking down the federal...more
This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Windsor, ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. With...more
Supreme Court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. pp. 13–26. ...more