Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

May 21, 2025 | Supreme Court Sides With FDA on Flavored Vape Denials

Author: DONALD SCARINCI

Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transportation: Tax Discrimination under the 4-R Act

In Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, 135 S.Ct. 1136 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed what constitutes tax discrimination under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulation Reform Act of 1976, otherwise known as the “4-R Act.” ...

Read More

Jennings v. Stephens: Certificate of Appealability Not Required for Habeas Petitioner

In Jennings v. Stephens, 135 S.Ct. 793 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed how to apply the Court’s decision in United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U. S. 42 (1924) to habeas relief. In that case, the Court held that an appellee ...

Read More

Davis v. Ayala: Excluding Attorneys from Batson Hearing Was Harmless Error

In Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether it was a harmless error to exclude defense counsel from the Batson hearing. A deeply divided court ultimately answered yes, highlighting that habeas petitioners are ...

Read More

Warger v. Shauers: Interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)

In Warger v. Shauers, 135 S. Ct. 521 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which provides a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations during “an in...

Read More

Woods v. Donald: The Standard for Habeas Relief

In Woods v. Donald, 135 S.Ct. 1372 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified when a federal court may grant habeas relief. In a per curium opinion, the justices unanimously held that court may only grant such relief when the state court’s decision i...

Read More

Christeson v. Roper: Counsel Meets “Interests of Justice” Standard

In Christeson v. Roper, 135 S. Ct. 891 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the requirements for counsel substitution under "the interests of justice" standard. In a 7-2 per curium decision, the majority held that a conflict of interest is ground...

Read More

Week in Review: SCOTUS Chides California Court & Adds Drunk Driving Case

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, holding that the California Court of Appeal erred in finding an arbitration clause required the application of state law despite its preemption by the Federal Arbitrat...

Read More

Kerry v. Din: Visa Denials and Due Process

In Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government did not violate the Due Process rights of the petitioner when it denied her husband’s visa based on his alleged engagement in terrorist activities, with...

Read More

Week in Review: Court Considers Potential Landmark Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in five cases last week. Several of the decisions have the potential to be blockbusters, with high-profile Constitutional issues at stake. Below is a brief summary of these potential landmark cases: ...

Read More

M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett: Retiree Health Benefits Aren’t Presumed to Vest for Life

In M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett, 135 S.Ct. 926 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that lower courts should apply traditional contract principles to determine whether retiree health benefits survive the expiration of a collective bargaining agreem...

Read More
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 56
  4. 57
  5. 58
  6. 59
  7. 60
  8. 61
  9. 62
  10. 63
  11. 64
  12. 65
  13. 66
  14. 67
  15. 68
  16. 69
  17. 70
  18. 71
  19. 72
  20. 73
  21. 74
  22. 75
  23. 76
  24. ...
  25. 92

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Agrees to Consider Birthright Citizen Cases
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 21, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s execut...

Read More
SCOTUS Rules Non-Citizens Must Challenge Removal Under Alien Enemies Act
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 6, 2025

In Trump v. J.G.G., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens challenging their removal under ...

Read More
Causing Physical Harm Always Involves “Use of Force”
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 29, 2025

In Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the knowing ...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • SCOTUS Clarifies Bruen in Upholding Federal Gun Law
  • SCOTUS Rules Challenged South Carolina District Is Not a Racial Gerrymander
  • Supreme Court Rejects Strict Criminal Forfeiture Timelines
  • Supreme Court Clarifies “Safety Valve” in Federal Criminal Sentencing Laws

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards


Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising