Search
Filter Search
Maxine Eichner
Maxine Eichner is the Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
Naomi Cahn
Naomi Cahn is the Anthony M. Kennedy Professor of Law, and Co-Director of the Family Law Center, at the University of Virginia School of Law.
State Constitutions Could Bar State and Local Police Collaboration with ICE
Case law in multiple states suggests state and local officials who cooperate in federal abuses might run afoul of their own state constitutions.
State ex rel. Boggs v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court held a municipality's state constitutional duty to pay compensation when its actions amount to a taking applies regardless of whether the property being taken is outside the city's boundaries
Zyst v. Miller
Oregon appellate court affirmed trial court ruling that prison's failure to provide medically necessary gender-affirming care and treatment to a transgender inmate, and to provide adequate conditions when the inmate was in segregation, violated cruel and unusual punishment and "unnecessary rigor" clauses, only reversing as to part of the trial court's relief
Opternative, Inc. v. South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners
South Carolina Supreme Court ruled a law prohibiting glasses and contact prescriptions based solely on online vision tests, without an in-person eye exam, did not violate telehealth business’s due process or equal protection rights
Joshua Sellers
Joshua Sellers is a Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law. He teaches and writes in the areas of election law, constitutional law, race and the law, and American politics.
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Governor
Michigan Supreme Court, post-oral argument, denied petition for review raising whether a statute barring claims against the state unless the plaintiff provides notice of the claim within one year of accrual, applies to constitutional claims for prospective relief against officials
Eyman v. Hobbs
Washington Supreme Court held secretary of state did not have a clear duty to advance a proposed parental rights referendum because the legislation that would have been put to vote included a valid emergency declaration exempting it from the referendum power
