The Second Circuit recently denied the government’s petition for a rehearing en banc, thereby allowing the constitutional challenge to a […]
An Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently decided the “first case involving Facebook to have resulted in an ALJ decision.” Judge Arthur Amchan stated that “the only substantive issue in this case . . . is whether by their postings on Facebook, the five employees engaged in activity protected by the [National Labor Relations] Act (NLRA).” Judge Amchan stated that “discussing” employment conditions is protected “regardless of whether there is evidence that such discussions are engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing group action.” Should NLRA protection turn on whether the Facebook post receives a “Like” or a few one-line lighthearted responses by friends who happen to be co-workers?
Anthony Cooper is far from the most sympathetic litigant before the Supreme Court this term. In 2003, Cooper shot a woman four times as she ran away from him. Though Cooper’s behavior was by all accounts egregious, his attorney’s conduct was pretty bad as well. When a criminal defendant turns down a plea deal based on his attorney’s ignorance of the law and subsequently receives a harsher sentence after trial, can he seek to overturn his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel?
Recent years have seen a growing emphasis on the notion that America’s children should be spending more time in school. The idea that more schooling will enhance learning outcomes bears an awkward resemblance to the notion that additional money will amplify happiness; both points of view seem to reflect an unwillingness to work creatively with the material already at hand.
In its decision earlier this year in Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court controversially held that the First Amendment protected
Stephen Colbert has increased the visibility of super PACs with Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. And if Colbert’s goal is
In opposition to a bill in the California State Senate allowing public universities and colleges to consider race, gender, ethnicity
Wal-Mart announced last Wednesday its plans to source a total of $20 billion dollars worth of products from women-owned businesses in the United States over the next five years. This ‘woman-friendly’ initiative comes just months after the Supreme Court’s June 2011 ruling in the nearly decade-long battle for class certification for nearly 1.5 million women currently and formerly employed by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s “women-friendly” initiative does nothing to address the concerns presented by the “women of Wal-Mart.”
In a ruling that could play a significant role in solidifying the emerging consensus that citizens have a constitutional interest
Jaycee Dugard has filed suit against the U.S. government, alleging that the failure of law enforcement officers to adequately monitor
U.S. jurisprudence has dealt with constitutional rights since the enactment of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, it was explicitly decided by the framers of the Australian Constitution to not include a similar Bill of Rights, although the American notions of judicial review, separation of powers, and federalism were incorporated. Accordingly, throughout Australian history courts have rarely acted to protect civil rights on the basis of constitutional interpretation. This method of rights protection has been largely inadequate to protect Indigenous Australians from breaches of their civil rights, particularly in regards to equal protection and racial discrimination.
