Writing for Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost argues why Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu’s decision on the unconstitutionality of the California tenure system for teachers was a “drive-by assault on teachers unions” while Slate’s Jordan Weissmann comments on the false statistic cited in Judge Treu’s opinion that between 1 and 3 percent of California’s teachers are “grossly ineffective.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee met last week to discuss the Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence over the last several years. In an article for the Louisville Courier-Journal, David Gans notes why we need a constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions.
Writing for Concurring Opinions, Gerard Magliocca likens the Supreme Court justices to World Cup referees.
More than 500 of Pennsylvania’s inmates are serving life sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles. In an op-ed for The New York Times, ACS board member Linda Greenhouse notes the Supreme Court’s dismissal of a case involving a Pennsylvania inmate serving a mandatory life sentence for a crime he committed at age 17.
Rick Hills at Prawfsblawg reviews the decision by Judge Rolf M. Treu of the Los Angeles Superior Court to dismantle the California tenure system for teachers.
Michael Kagan at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights breaks down Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, discussing the Supreme Court’s ruling on the 2002 Child Status Protection Act and why young immigrants may be waiting a lot longer to be with their families.
State judges met in Philadelphia to address how special interests are influencing the court system.
Peter Hardin at GavelGrab reports on how politicized courts are contributing to a miscarriage of justice.
April Dembosky at NPR explains how registering for the Affordable Care Act may prevent former inmates from returning to a life of crime.
On Tuesday, Judge Rolf M. Treu of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that teacher tenure laws violated students’ civil rights. Lawyers for the teacher’s union asserted that the decision placed blame solely on teachers without considering the grave effects of economic inequalities and public school funding on student performance. Jennifer Medina at The New York Times reports on the decision that may lead to big changes throughout America’s classrooms.
Microsoft is fighting another warrant from federal prosecutors forcing the company to hand over a customer’s email. The case marks the “first time a corporation has challenged a domestic search warrant seeking digital information overseas.” Steve Lohr of The New York Times has the story.
Indigent prisoners who wish to file claims without paying fees may do so in forma pauperis (IFP). At CAC’s Text and History Blog, Brianna Gorod notes why the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which limits the number of times a prisoner can be eligible for IFP status, is unconstitutional.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that children waiting for immigration visas with their families must go to the back of the line when they turn 21 years-old. Lawrence Hurley at Reuters analyzes Scialabba v. de Osorio.
Last Friday, the Obama administration announced that it will provide lawyers for children facing deportation. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the step will “protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society.” Kirk Semple at The New York Times explains how the policy will affect immigration reform.
In 2011, families of former marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina sued an electronics plant for poisoning their water. Yesterday, the Supreme Court in a 7-to-2 decision ruled in favor of the electronics plant, saying that the families had missed a deadline to file suit. Sam Hananel at The Associated Press has the story.
Writing for The New York Times, David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth note the steps being taken by Google and other internet companies to protect their systems from the National Security Agency.
At The New Republic, Simon Lazarus breaks down Bond v. United States and how ”neo-isolationists” have “chosen a route to victory through the Supreme Court—not Congress, state legislators, or voters.”