Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that the right to marry is “a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,” and that “under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.” Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, slip op. at 22 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (majority opinion), available at http://1.usa.gov/1ON2rxf. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States” and that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State” merely because the marriage is between members of the same sex. Id. at 28.
At issue in the consolidated cases before the Court were laws from four states ' Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee ' that prohibited same-sex marriage and denied recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. The Obergefell decision struck down not only those laws, but all state laws that denied same-sex couples the right to get and stay married. Twelve years after the first state legalized marriage between members of the same sex (see Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)), marriage equality thus became the law of the land.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.