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.
On March 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Kumar v. Koester, dismissing a constitutional challenge to a university’s anti-discrimination policy that added “caste” as a protected class. Effective January 1,...more
Flynn v. Big Spring Sch. Dist., No. 1:22-CV-00961, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168913, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 19, 2024) (District Court permits Plaintiffs who were regular attendants at school board meetings to move forward with...more
Administrative deadlines in mass tort settlements are enforceable and binding—courts will uphold them even when millions of dollars are at stake and international claimants are involved. Electronic notification through...more
Employers, don't get played. "This is an employment-at-will state, and I can fire you for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." Oh, yeah?... ...more
This week, we take a look at a decision addressing the proper reading of “because” in federal discrimination statutes, and another addressing a California law precluding insurers from covering defense costs in litigation...more
On June 24, 2019, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (D), signed into law AB 10, entitled “2019 Wisconsin Act 7.” This Act either bars a deduction for, or requires that amounts deducted be added back to, Wisconsin taxable income...more
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided on the much-anticipated case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2080 (2018). At issue was the validity of a statute applying sales tax to internet retailers that...more
When one hears about a workplace shooting, it’s easy to demand a “Zero Tolerance” rule against workplace violence. It’s understandable that after the staggering and even criminal revelations of the #METOO Movement that...more
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order prohibiting the enforcement of Executive Order 13769 – “Protecting The Nation From...more
Following termination stemming from a positive drug test for marijuana, a Native American female, appearing pro se, filed a federal lawsuit against her former employer, Mohave County’s Public Works Department. She alleged...more
Investigations in the public sector confront the competing demands of employee privacy rights and the public’s “right to know” under the Freedom of Information Act [“FOIA”]. Another decision by the Freedom of Information...more
Rosu v. City of New York, No. 13-cv-243 (2d Cir. Feb. 7, 2014): Underlying this case, Mircea Rosu filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights alleging that his manager and coworkers discriminated...more
The ruling on Wednesday by the Supreme Court of the United States, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, will immediately extend to legally married same-sex couples a host of federal...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
In a closely watched and eagerly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, __ U.S. ___ (June 26, 2013) has overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which limited the definition of...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
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is unconstitutional. The decision of the Court applies to same-sex couples who are legally married as defined by their...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
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in U.S. v. Windsor that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is an unconstitutional “deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment of...more
The Supreme Court today handed down a far reaching decision throwing out an attempt by Congress to deny the benefits conferred by federal law on same sex couples legally married under state law holding that the Defense of...more