Supreme Court Puts Onus on Lawmakers to Provide Second Chances for Kids | Opinion Marc Levin
, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice On 5/3/21 at 6:00 AM EDT
On April 22, the Supreme Court issued a disappointing decision in
Jones v. Mississippi, a case of a juvenile who had been given a life sentence without parole. In essence, the Court declined to extend its prior holdings by imposing additional requirements on state courts considering whether a life without parole sentence is appropriate for a child. Given the Court s 6-3 conservative majority, the decision not to impose a prescriptive rule on the lower courts comes as no surprise, as it aligns with the philosophy that these details should be left to the states. Half of U.S. states have already rejected this immoral brand of sentencing for children, and the Court s decision makes it clearer than ever that the rest should follow suit.
On April 22 the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does not have authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act Section.
Why The Supreme Court Struck Down California s Limits On Private Worship (And Why It Is A Big Deal) forbes.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from forbes.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Все застрявшие из-за Ever Given суда прошли Суэцкий канал pda.kp.ru - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from pda.kp.ru Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
In one of the first decisions in the country with respect to
insurers obligations to their insureds for COVID-19 claims in
the context of commercial liability coverage, one court has found a
duty to defend under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy.
In
McDonald s Corp., et al. v. Austin Mutual Insurance
Company, 1:20-cv-05057, the federal district
court held that a claim for injunctive relief requiring
McDonald s to enact more stringent safety protocols and provide
additional training to franchisees and their employees on
preventative measures to avoid the spread of COVID-19, constituted