ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. SUPREME COURT

“In conversations, letters and reports, the committee repeatedly framed its inquiry using the wrong standard,” Wolf said. "If you address the wrong question, you’re likely to get the wrong answer.”
The death row inmate believes DNA testing could help exonerate him in the 1996 abduction, rape and murder of a 19-year-old woman.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin said his panel "will act" based on the report, without specifying what steps it would take.
The U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices are hearing arguments in the Biden administration's appeal of the two lower court rulings today. The court is expected to rule on this case this Spring.

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines
From freezing the Supreme Court at nine members to preserving Mount Rushmore, Rep. Dusty Johnson is re-introducing previously-failed legislation he hopes will succeed in the GOP-controlled House.
In similar cases over the past three years that the court has turned away, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have cast doubt on the 1977 ruling.
Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to hear the case, faulting the appeals court for invalidating an "important tool for combating activities that exacerbate unlawful immigration."
The narrowly tailored bill, which would require the federal government to recognize a marriage if it was legal in the state in which it was performed, is meant to be a backstop if the Supreme Court acted against same-sex marriage. It would not bar states from blocking same-sex or interracial marriages if the Supreme Court allowed them to do so.
A New York Times report of a former anti-abortion leader's claim that he was told in advance about the outcome of a major 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case involving contraceptives.
Allowing the lower court decision to stand would "undermine the separation of powers and render the office of the Presidency vulnerable to invasive information demands from political opponents in the legislative branch," Trump's lawyers wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

The high court's take on the case is "very hard to predict," said Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who wrote a brief supporting Warhol with other copyright scholars.
In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states new power to prosecute alleged crimes by non-Natives against Natives committed on reservations. Though the immediate changes stemming from the case remain unclear, some Native sources say the implementation of this decision could mean further infringement on tribal sovereignty.
Experts warn that simply claiming the benefits may create paper trails for law enforcement officials in states criminalizing abortion. That will complicate life for the dozens of corporations promising to protect, or even expand, the abortion benefits for employees and their dependents.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT