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.
Last week, the Illinois federal court in Volkswagen Group of America v. Illinois Secretary of State, 2024 WL 2020036 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2024) granted a motion to dismiss a challenge brought by Volkswagen (“VW”) against a 2022...more
This week, the Court confronted constitutional challenges to a California statute altering the test for determining whether workers are employees or independent contractors and an Arizona statute governing civil forfeitures. ...more
A case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit highlights that, even in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritizing federal grant money based on race and gender will likely violate the equal...more
On January 17, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Juliana v. United States that a coalition of young people lacked standing to require the federal government to develop a plan to “phase...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held today that federal District Courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain challenges to ongoing SEC administrative enforcement proceedings. A...more
Two controversial cases involving same-sex marriage were decided on June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court. ...more
Signed into law in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, defined “marriage” for purposes of federal law as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex....more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its decisions in Windsor v. United States and Hollingsworth, et. al. v. Perry et. al., thus ending a four year "fast-track" judicial expedition of the validity of the...more
On June 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional in the case of United States v. Windsor (“Windsor”). In a related case, the...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
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
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