Anti-abortion rights reach the Supreme Court
Dean Rachel Rebouche joins frequent co-authors David S. Cohen and Greer Donley, taking a deep dive on Law Dork into abortion and reproductive rights before the Supreme Court. Read More
Author: Nicole Regis
Has the Criminal Court [Defense] Expert Door Opened a Little?
Has the PA Supreme Court opened the door to expert testimony about interrogation techniques and other factors that could render witness testimony “unreliable?” Prof. Jules Epstein examines the outcome in Commonwealth v. McGinnis, decided in December 2023. Read More
Abortion-Pill Case Puts Supreme Court Back in the Hot Seat
Medication abortion accounts for nearly two-thirds of abortions, making it a “threat to the anti-abortion movement,” according to Dean Rebouche. The Supreme Court will decide a case this term that could roll back its availability. Read More
The New Judge Shopping Fix Has Two Huge Loopholes
Prof. Paul Gugliuzza and co-author J. Jonas Anderson explain how judge shopping has created a legitimacy crisis for federal courts and how a new case assignment policy can and can’t help. Read More
FTX Probe to Test Whether Law Giant Is Tainted by Conflicts (1)
US Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey has cleared former Unabomber prosecutor Robert Cleary to investigate the prebankrupty relationship between FTX and Sullivan & Cromwell. Prof. Jonathan Lipson has been a leading voice in the call for scrutiny of the firm. Read More
Law Professors Say Judicial Conference’s Guidance on Case Assignment Practices is ‘Toothless’
IPWatchdog picks up on criticism raised by Professor Paul Gugliuzza and co-author J. Jonas Anderson that new regulations intended to curb judge-shopping are essentially “toothless.” Read More
What the ancient Greeks understood about democracy that Trump does not
Does the US President bear a “duty of care?” Prof. Jane Manners and co-author Melissa Lane look at the historic evidence and offer an innovative proposal for ensuring future executives take heed in their LA Times op-ed. Read More
Trump, Biden, and the Fake Cry of Selective Prosecution
The report announcing that no criminal charges would be brought against Joseph Biden for mishandling classified materials brought an unsurprising response from Donald Trump – that this was “selective prosecution.” As he stated in a speech to the NRA, “It was just announced that Joe Biden’s Department of Injustice will bring zero charges against crooked Joe despite the fact he willfully retained undisclosed droves of ultra-classified national security documents.” Trump added “if he’s not going to be charged, that’s up to them, but then I should not be charged.” And this claim has now been made in court papers, as Trump’s lawyers in the documents case filed a new pleading calling it a case that should have never been brought and must ultimately be dismissed on the basis of, inter alia, selective and vindictive prosecution. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report issued by Special Counsel Robert Hur, finding that President Biden has “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” over the course of …
Heath on Chinese Boycotts
Legal History Blog shares new work by Prof. Ben Heath on early 20th-century boycotts as “insurgent legal ordering” and their relevance for economic sanctions in the international legal order today. Read More
Judge Newman’s Upheld Suspension Has Some Questioning Ethics Law
Prof. Paul Gugliuzza explains and defends the standard of review in a rare decision by the US Judicial Conference’s Committee on Conduct and Disability to uphold the suspension of an Article III judge. Read More
