Lawsuit

January’s Criminal Law Arguments – and is “Party Presentation” Morphing into a Court-Controlling Rule?

by

As the Supreme Court resumes its activities after the winter recess, significant discussions surrounding criminal law are expected to emerge. The first oral arguments of the year will commence on January 12, with a focus on several notable cases, including the pivotal Wolford v. Lopez, which will be argued later in the month. This case, along with others addressing the rights of trans individuals, could have profound implications for criminal law, highlighting the evolving landscape of judicial interpretation in this area. Overview of Upcoming Cases The Supreme Court will hear a total of nine cases … Read more

The Most Unorthodox Dissent

by

In the annals of the Supreme Court, dissenting opinions often serve as a vital counterbalance to the prevailing majority. One of the most striking examples of this occurred on August 3, 1973, when Justice William O. Douglas, acting alone and far from the usual confines of the Court, issued a dissent that would challenge the very principles of executive power and constitutional authority. This dissent was not merely a disagreement but a profound reflection of the tensions between the legislative and executive branches during a tumultuous period in American history. The Context of Constitutional Tensions … Read more

Skrmetti and birth equality (Part V): How the case should have been analyzed

by

The recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Skrmetti has sparked significant debate regarding the implications of birth equality in the context of legal classifications based on sex and age. The ruling, which permits Tennessee to enforce a law that restricts medical treatments for minors based on their biological sex, raises crucial questions about the intersection of state law, individual rights, and constitutional principles. In this segment, we will analyze the court’s reasoning and explore how the case should have been approached through the lens of birth equality. Understanding the Implications of the Skrmetti … Read more

Reviving Lenity: A Critical Examination of Its Role in American Criminal Law

by

The rule of lenity has long served as a cornerstone of American criminal jurisprudence, acting as a safeguard against the arbitrary expansion of criminal liability. This doctrine mandates that courts interpret ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant, thus ensuring a fair application of the law. As society evolves and legal interpretations change, the revival of lenity is essential to uphold the principles of justice and fairness within the criminal justice system. The Historical Significance of the Rule of Lenity Historically, the rule of lenity has functioned as a constitutional safeguard deeply rooted in … Read more