Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year, in Windsor v. U.S., that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ' which states that no matter whether any state permits same-sex couples to marry, the United States cannot recognize that marriage as valid ' is unconstitutional as applied to couples who are legally married in a state that sanctions same-sex marriage, questions arose from many quarters. Would federal government agencies apply their policies differently, depending on whether a same-sex couple resided in Oklahoma (where same-sex marriage is not recognized) or in New York (where it is)? What if the couple were married while living in a state that sanctions their union, yet later moved to one that didn't, or vice versa?
The answers are now coming, in a piecemeal manner, as the federal government announces to agency after agency that they must treat same-sex married couples as they do opposite-sex married couples. And it makes very little difference what a couple's home state says: The federal government apparently intends to recognize their marriages, even if their state will not.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.