judicial
opinions
FREE NEWS LINKS
HOME
SEARCH
Updates & changes ongoing ....
----
Although this site is https-secure, we cannot guarantee that it or any
provided links are safe; be sure your antivirus and other security systems are
up to date.
Also see:
Judges; Supreme Court;
Jump to: 2018; 2019;
2020;
Undated: A
judicial opinion is a form of
legal opinion written by a
judge or a
judicial panel in the course of resolving a legal dispute, providing the
decision
reached to resolve the dispute, and usually indicating the facts which led to
the dispute and an analysis of the
law used to arrive
at the decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion
-- 2018 --
May 6: Trump's judges are flexing their
muscles, from civil rights to campaign spending
The men and women President Trump has elevated to federal judgeships across the
nation are having an impact on issues ranging from civil rights and campaign
spending to public prayer and the death penalty.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/06/trumps-judges-ruling-politics-prayer-executions-race/576848002/
June 5: In His Own Words: The President's
Attacks on the Courts
Donald Trump has displayed a troubling pattern of attacking judges and the
courts for rulings he disagrees with.
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts
June 26: Trump v. Hawaii, No.
17-965,
585
U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark
United States Supreme Court case involving
Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President
Donald
Trump, which restricted travel in the United States by people from several
nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents.
Hawaii and
several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation (and two predecessor
executive orders also issued by Trump) on statutory and constitutional
grounds; citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials,
they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by
anti-Muslim animus.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii :
July 26: Legal Opinions Or Political
Commentary? A New Judge Exemplifies The Trump Era
Less than a year into a lifetime appointment, a 45-year-old federal appeals
court judge named James Ho may embody President Trump's most enduring legacy.
Ho has shaken up the staid world of appellate law by deploying aggressive
rhetoric in cases involving guns, abortion rights and campaign finance
regulations.
Today's government "would be unrecognizable to our Founders," he has written. He
condemned what he called "the moral tragedy of abortion." And he's bemoaned that
the Second Amendment appears to be considered a "second class right."
Critics say Ho is writing op-ed columns, not legal opinions. Friends and former
colleagues said he's an intellectual engaging with ideas. And that he's just
getting started.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/26/632005799/legal-opinions-or-political-commentary-a-new-judge-exemplifies-the-trump-era
October 1: REWRITING JUDICIAL OPINIONS AND
THE FEMINIST SCHOLARLY PROJECT
In 1995, the authors of a law review article examining “feminist judging”
focused on the existing social science data concerning women judges and compared
the voting records and opinions of the only female Justices on the U.S. Supreme
Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor.1 Based on this review, the
authors concluded that appointing more women as judges would make little
difference to judicial outcomes or processes.2 The authors accused those who
advocated for more women on the bench of having a hidden feminist agenda3 and
bluntly concluded that “[b]y any measure, feminist judges fit very uneasily in
most conceptions of the proper role of the judicial system.”4
http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/1-Symposium_BergerStanchiCrawford_Final.pdf
November 8:
In an action challenging the Department of
Homeland Security’s rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),
the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief,
and affirmed in part the district court’s partial grant and partial denial of
the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/11/08/18-15068.pdf
December 19: Federal judge strikes down
Trump asylum rules for domestic and gang violence victims
In a ruling Wednesday, Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down large portions of
Justice Department policies that made it harder for immigrants to claim asylum.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/federal-judge-strikes-down-trump-asylum-rules-domestic-gang-violence-n949936
December 27: “Trump’s judges have ruled in
favor of police, prison guards and a male student seeking the right to face his
accuser in a sexual assault case, as well as against a naturalized citizen
fighting his loss of citizenship,”
USA Today’s Richard Wolf writes. Not all of them have acted in line with the
president’s political agenda, however; at least one judge has helped preserve
asylum rights for a Mexican immigrant.
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/27/18136294/trump-mitch-mconnell-republican-judges
Undated: U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
Announcements [audio podcast]
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/u-s-supreme-court-opinion-announcements/id1046976754?mt=2
-- 2019 --
-- 2020 --
Webpage visitor counts provided
by
copyr 2018 trump-news-history.com, Minneapolis, MN