"In Berkeley, on a picturesque university campus in the springtime, a young woman is shoved backwards down a concrete stairway by her partner. This follows months of escalating violence, during which he slams her into walls, chokes her, pours beer on her, threatens to kill her, stalks her, promises to split her head open with a hammer. She ends the relationship, cuts off contact, flees to the other side of the country, and initiates a Title IX case against him at the university. She knows what has happened to her, what she has experienced and survived: abuse, manipulation, threats against her life, gaslighting. She knows she has lived through these trials. But others say, simply, that she hasn't -- and that her boyfriend is the real victim. In this investigative memoir, historian and journalist Joy Neumeyer explores how violence against women is portrayed, perceived, defined, and adjudicated today, decades after the inception of Title IX. Interweaving the harrowing account of the abuse she experienced at the hands of her boyfriend when they were graduate students with those of other women who faced violence on campuses throughout history, Neumeyer offers a startling look at how little has changed in the years since Title IX was enacted, and uncovers its inherent flaws. She takes us through her own experience with the process, and reveals how in an effort to listen to survivors on campuses, the quasi-law, in reality, brings their experience into question. Deeply reported, nuanced and timely, A Survivor's Education demystifies Title IX while also examining how entangled storytelling is with abuse and power, and how we can balance narrative and evidence in our attempts to determine what "really happened.""--

"This concise but comprehensive book engagingly lays out answers to myriad questions about free speech principles and current controversies, including those pertaining to hate speech, disinformation, and social media. Nadine Strossen, one of America's leading free speech scholars and advocates, focuses on modern First Amendment law, explaining the historic factors that propelled its evolution toward more speech protection -- in particular, the civil rights movement. She highlights the many cases in which robust speech-protective principles have aided advocates of racial justice and other human rights causes. The book also shows how these rulings reflect universal, timeless values that benefit everyone, regardless of identity or ideology. Correcting prevalent misunderstandings, the book explains that the First Amendment sensibly permits government to outlaw the speech that is the most dangerous, while outlawing the censorship that is the most dangerous. The book's lively question-and-answer format clearly and memorably presents free speech tenets, citing colorful episodes and eloquent language from landmark Supreme Court opinions. It will be illuminating to a wide range of readers, from those who know nothing about free speech law, to experts who seek a well-organized summary of major doctrines, as well as insights into their background and rationales." --

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMarch 19, 2025Contact: Nizhoni Begay, WPLC Communications, communications@waterprotectorlegal.org, (210) 324-3393Breaking – Verdict in Landmark SLAPP Case Against Greenpeace: Water Protector Legal Collective Continues the Call for Corporate Transparency and Accountability, and Respect for Indigenous SovereigntyMandan, ND – A North Dakota jury has ruled in favor of Energy Transfer, awarding the company hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in its lawsuit against Greenpea

The president's contention that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional is considered a fringe view because the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary 127 years ago.

Our new data tool, Tracking Major Rules in the Courts, compiles more up-to-date case results that can be easily compared across presidential administrations, and offers additional research findings. Between 2017 and 2021, the Institute for Policy Integrity[[The Institute for Policy Integrity has filed amicus briefs in several of the cases discussed in this Roundup. Policy Integrity did not represent any of the parties.]]documented the outcomes of litigation over the Trump administration's use of federal agencies to implement its policies.[[The Roundup does not include litigation over self-implementing presidential memoranda or executive orders or over project-level decisions.]] We tracked litigation over agency actions such as regulations, guidance documents, and agency memoranda.[[At times, advocates have brought lawsuits over a single agency action in multiple different courts. The Roundup combines decisions from different courts regarding the same agency action in a single entry. ]] The win-loss rate below reflects all decisions through January 20, 2021, when the Biden administration took office. [[A new administration’s litigation strategy may differ from the previous administration’s litigation strategy due to differences in policy objectives. See Bethany A. Davis Noll, “Tired of Winning”: Judicial Review of Regulatory Policy in the Trump Era, 73 Admin L. Rev. 353, 389 (2021) (noting ways in which Biden administration’s strategy changed in light of substantive goals). Accordingly, changes after President Biden took office are not clearly attributable to the Trump administration, and we did not recategorize reversals that occurred after this transition.]] Any reversals or modifications on appeal that occurred during the remainder of 2021 are noted in the case descriptions. [[The Roundup reflects wins and losses as they stood on January 20, 2021 when President Biden was inaugurated and his administration took over the defense of cases. Subsequent reversals on appeal or any other subsequent modifications that occurred prior to April 1, 2022 are noted in the relevant entry, but are not reflected in "win" or "loss" categorizations. If cases in the tracker were instead categorized as wins or losses based on subsequent substantive reversals on appeal or other subsequent modifications that occurred, 57 cases (23%) would have been successful for the administration and 188 (77%) of cases would have been unsuccessful for the administration.]] As of April 25, 2022, those updates are no longer being added.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 15, 2025 Belcourt, ND – To welcome Leonard Peltier back to his homelands after 49 years...

This site tracks anti-immigrant litigation across the country, follows them through the court system, and houses important filings, news coverage, and advocacy tools to advance a more humane, moral and dignified immigration system.

"Sex and Privacy in American Law presents empirical analyses of civil and criminal state court decisions applying the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas. After tracing key historical and legal developments leading up to the Lawrence decision's decriminalization of sodomy on substantive due process grounds in 2003, the study employs both quantitative and qualitative content analyses of 307 cases citing Lawrence over the two decades since it was decided. Results indicate that judicial decisions rarely embraced broad readings of Lawrence in criminal cases. In fact, Lawrence's long-term impact on criminal law has largely remained as limited as some commentators predicted shortly after the case was decided. In civil cases, courts tended not to rely on Lawrence significantly in most business and employment law cases. Courts that applied Lawrence in family law disputes - especially those involving same-sex couples - often construed the case narrowly at first, but broadened their interpretations after Obergefell v. Hodges brought marriage equality to the United States. Lawrence also impacted LGBTQ+ civil rights claims. Statistically significant geographic differences were found relating to how courts used Lawrence in those cases, with judges in Northeastern and Pacific coastal states having applied the precedent broadly, while judges in Southern and Midwestern states tending to have applied the case more narrowly. The implications are explored generally and within the specific context of the constriction of substantive due process rights in the wake Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization."--

"In See Justice Done: The Problem of Law in the African American Literary Tradition, author Christopher Michael Brown argues that African American literature has profound and deliberate legal roots. Tracing this throughline from the eighteenth century to the present, Brown demonstrates that engaging with legal culture in its many forms-including its conventions, paradoxes, and contradictions-is paramount to understanding Black writing. Brown begins by examining petitions submitted by free and enslaved Blacks to colonial and early republic legislatures. A virtually unexplored archive, these petitions aimed to demonstrate the autonomy and competence of their authors. Brown also examines early slave autobiographies such as Olaudah Equiano's Interesting Narrative and Mary Prince's History, which were both written in the form of legal petitions. These works invoke scenes of Black competence and of Black madness, repeatedly and simultaneously. Early Black writings reflect how a Black Atlantic world, organized by slavery, refused to acknowledge Black competence. By including scenes of Black madness, these narratives critique the violence of the law and predict the failure of future legal counterparts, such as Plessy v. Ferguson, to remedy injustice. Later chapters examine the works of more contemporary writers, such as Sutton E. Griggs, George Schuyler, Toni Morrison, and Edward P. Jones, and explore varied topics from American exceptionalism to the legal trope of "colorblindness." In chronicling these interactions with jurisprudential logics, See Justice Done reveals the tensions between US law and Black experiences of both its possibilities and its perils"--

"A sitting federal judge's recounting of six cases, to make the argument for revisiting overly punitive sentences"--

"A brutal killing, an all-out manhunt, and a riveting account of the first murder trial in U.S. history--set in the 1600s in colonial New England against the backdrop of the Pequot War (between the Pequot tribe and the colonists of Massachusetts Bay), an explosive trial whose outcome changed the course of history, ended a two-year war, and brought about a peace that allowed the colonies to become a full-blown nation. The year: 1638. The setting: Providence, Plymouth Colony. A young Nipmuc tribesman, returning home from trading beaver pelts, is fatally stabbed in a robbery in the woods near Plymouth Colony, by a white runaway servant and fellow rogues. The young tribesman, fighting for his life, is able, with his final breaths, to reveal the details of the attack to Providence's governor, Roger Williams. A frantic manhunt by the fledgling government of Plymouth ensues, followed by the convening of the first trial, with Plymouth's governor Thomas Prence presiding as judge. The jury: local settlers (white) whose allegiance seems more likely to be with the accused than with the murdered (a native) . . . Tobey Pearl, piecing together a fascinating narrative through original research and first-rate detective work, re-creates in detail the full and startling, pivotal moment in pre-revolutionary America, as she examines the evolution of our nascent civil liberties and the role of the jury as a safeguard against injustice"--

"This book employs a narrative portraiture approach to recenter the stories of those involved in the Lau v. Nichols court case. It brings Chinese and Chinese American voices to the forefront, filling a significant gap in narration, representation and retrospective research"--

The processed records of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund consist of approximately 80,000 items of which about 80% (210,299 images) have been digitized thus far. Spanning the years 1915-1968, with most dating from 1940 to 1960, these records document the work and procedures of the organization as it combated racial discrimination in the nation’s courts, establishing in the process a public interest legal practice that was unprecedented in American jurisprudence. The organization’s records cover a host of topics, including segregation in schools, on buses, and in public facilities; discrimination in housing and property ownership; voting rights; police brutality; racial violence; and countless other infringements of civil rights.

In the spirit of truth and reconciliation, judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officers write about working with First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Peoples through their trials and tribulations with the criminal justice system. The stories are a mix of previously published essays from the True Cases anthologies with an equal number of new chapters by legal and law enforcement professionals including Justice Thomas Berger (posthumous), Justice Nancy Morrison, Justice John Reilly, Senator Kim Pate, lawyers Eleanore Sunchild, Brian Beresh, and John L. Hill, and parole and police officers Doug Heckbert, Ernie Louttit, Val Hoglund, and Sharon Bourque.

Penguin Random House LLC et al v. Gibson et al (6:24-cv-01573), Florida Middle District Court, Filed: 08/29/2024

Decades before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, pregnant people faced arrest and prosecution for supposed crimes against the fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses they gestated. The Pregnancy Police investigates the legal arguments undergirding these prosecutions and sheds much-needed light on the networks of health-care providers, social workers, and legal personnel participating in this ongoing surveillance and punishment of pregnant people. Drawing on detailed analyses of legislation, statements from prosecutors and law enforcement, and records from over a thousand arrest cases, Grace E. Howard traces the long history of state attempts to regulate and control people who have the capacity for pregnancy--from the early twentieth century's white supremacist eugenics to the end of Roe and the ever-increasing criminalization of abortion across the United States.

"Ordinary Injustice shows how the legal and judicial system is stacked against Latinos documenting the racial inequities in the system from the time of arrest and incarceration to final disposition and post-conviction experiences. The book chronicles the obstacles and injustices faced a young Latino student with no previous criminal record and how a simple, misdemeanor domestic violence case morphed into a very serious case with multiple felonies, and a life case without the possibility of parole"--

The politics of domination with which the United States oppresses and exploits the Native Nations, is a violation of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, and the meaning of the text itself. The arguments of the advocates of the genocide of the 1830s and their appeasers have come to determine the law, policy, and conduct of the United States, while the arguments of the opponents of what came to be known as the Trail of Tears have largely been forgotten, at least among non-Native people. By recovering these arguments, and allowing readers to explore large questions of law, justice, genocide, and politics in a context closely tethered to empirical evidence and careful argument, this book should facilitate more widespread understanding of the Native Nations' rights to their treaty-guaranteed dominion over their own lands and perhaps help open communication between the American people and the peoples of the Native Nations; communication on which the emergence of what Martin Luther King, Jr. called 'the beloved community' depends. Arguments over Genocide aims to reach a broad audience of college students, in courses on American History, Indigenous Studies, and the United States and the World, as well as in more specialized upper division courses on constitutional law, American/European imperialism, and resistance, independence, and decolonization movements. Individuals interested in the founding of the United States, in the Trail of Tears, and in 19th century American history should find the work compelling, as should legal practitioners in the field

This article was updated on June 29 at 4:09 p.m.In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday.

This blog post, part 2 in a series, discusses the coram nobis proceeding relating to Fred Korematsu's earlier conviction as a nisei prisoner of a Japanese internment camp in the United States during WWII.

"By re-writing US Supreme Court opinions that implicate critical dimensions of racial justice, Critical Race Judgments demonstrates that it's possible to be judge and a critical race theorist. Specific issues covered in these cases include the death penalty, employment, voting, policing, education, the environment, justice, housing, immigration, sexual orientation, segregation, and mass incarceration. While some rewritten cases {u2013} Plessy v. Ferguson (which constitutionalized Jim Crow) and Korematsu v. United States (which constitutionalized internment) {u2013} originally focused on race, many of the rewritten opinions {u2013} Lawrence v. Texas (which constitutionalized sodomy laws) and Roe v. Wade (which constitutionalized a woman's right to choose) {u2013} are used to incorporate racial justice principles in novel and important ways. This work is essential for everyone who needs to understand why critical race theory must be deployed in constitutional law to uphold and advance racial justice principles that are foundational to US democracy."-- from publisher's website.

Our podcasts allow listeners to hear the best arguments on all sides of the constitutional issues at the center of American life.

Law & Order meets the climate crisis as we dig into the stories behind hundreds of climate cases around the globe.

On September 15, 1924, Martha Lum and her older sister Berda were barred from attending middle school in Rosedale, Mississippi. The girls were Chinese American and considered by the school to be "colored"; the school was for whites. This event would lead to the first US Supreme Court case to challenge the constitutionality of racial segregation in Southern public schools, thirty years before the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. By confronting the "separate but equal" doctrine, the Lum family fought for the right to educate Chinese Americans in the white schools of the Jim Crow South. Using their groundbreaking lawsuit as a compass, Berard depicts the complicated condition of racial otherness in rural Southern society. The author evokes a time and place previously defined by black and white, a time and place that, until now, has never been viewed through the eyes of a forgotten third race. In vivid prose, the Mississippi Delta, an empire of cotton and a bastion of slavery, is reimagined to reveal the experiences of a lost immigrant community. Berard illuminates a forgotten chapter of America's past and uncovers the journey of an oppressed people in their struggle for equality. --From publisher description

"In Sweet Taste of Liberty, W. Caleb McDaniel focuses on the experience of a freed slave who was sold back into slavery, eventually freed again, and who then sued the man who had sold her back into bondage. Henrietta Wood was born into slavery, but in 1848, she was taken to Cincinnati and legally freed. In 1855, however, a wealthy Kentucky businessman named Zebulon Ward, who colluded with Wood's employer, abducted Wood and sold her back into bondage. In the years that followed before and during the Civil War, she gave birth to a son and was forced to march to Texas. She obtained her freedom a second time after the war and returned to Cincinnati, where she sued Ward for $20,000 in damages--now known as reparations. Astonishingly, after ten years of litigation, Henrietta Wood won her case. In 1878, a Federal jury awarded her $2,500 and the decision stuck on appeal. While nowhere close to the amount she had demanded, this may be the largest amount of money ever awarded by an American court in restitution for slavery. Wood went on to live until 1912"--

Chronicles the rollbacks to African American participation in the vote since the Supreme Court's landmark decision in 2013, Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 2 (2013), which allowed districts to change voting requirements without approval from the Department of Justice.;"Focusing on the aftermath of Shelby, Anderson follows the astonishing story of government-dictated racial discrimination unfolding before our very eyes as more and more states adopt voter suppression laws. In gripping, enlightening details she explains how voter suppression works, from photo ID requirements to gerrymandering to poll closures. And with vivid characters, she explores the resistance: the organizing, activism, and court battles to restore the basic right to vote to all Americans as the nation gears up for the 2018 midterm elections"--Publisher information.;Most of us are well aware that there is something fundamentally broken about the way we vote, but not why. In One Person, No Vote, the author chronicles a timely, comprehensive, and powerful indictment of the history of brutal race-based vote suppression, and its many modern iterations- from voter ID requirements and voter purges to election fraud, and stolen elections. She also traces the related history of the rollbacks to African American participation in the vote since the 2013 Supreme Court decision that eviscerated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Known as the Shelby ruling, this decision effectively allowed districts with a demonstrated history of racial discrimination to change voting requirements without approval from the Department of Justice. All of this shows makes apparent the ways in which American elections are neither free no fair. -- Publisher description

What began as a neighborhood party during the summer of 1942 led to the largest mass murder trial in California's history. After young Jose Diaz was found murdered near Los Angeles' Sleepy Lagoon reservoir, 600 Mexican Americans were rounded up by the police, 24 were indicted, and 17 were convicted. But thanks to the efforts of crusading lawyers, Hollywood celebrities, and Mexican Americans throughout the nation, all 17 convictions were thrown out in an appellate decision that cited lack of evidence, coerced testimony, deprivation of the right to counsel, and judicial misconduct. Mark Weitz chronicles the Sleepy Lagoon case (People v. Zammora) from the streets of the L.A.'s Mexican-American neighborhoods to the criminal courts, through the appeals process, and to the ultimate release of the convicted. In the process, Weitz opens a window on the uneasy world of Hispanic-Anglo relations, which, exacerbated by an influx of Mexican immigrants, had simmered beneath the surface in California for a century and reached the boiling point by 1942. By demonstrating how an environment of hostility and fear had fostered a breakdown in the legal protections that should have been afforded to the Sleepy Lagoon defendants, Weitz also illuminates a vital episode in the evolution of defendants' rights--including the right to counsel and a fair and impartial trial. As the case unfolded, the prosecution and local media drew ominous comparisons between the supposed dangers posed by the Mexican-American defendants and the threat allegedly posed by thousands of Japanese Americans, whose sympathies had been called into question after Pearl Harbor. Weitz shows how Zammora demonstrates what it is like to literally be tried in the court of public opinion where the "opinion" has been shaped before the trial even begins. Now, as Americans once again feel threatened by outsiders--whether Islamic jihadists or illegal immigrants--Zammora provides a mirror showing us how we acted then compared to how we respond now. While much of what occurred in 1942 L.A. was unique to its time and place, Weitz's compelling narrative shows that many of the social, political, and culture issues that dominated America then are still with us today.