: Can habeas corpus cases proceed as class actions? The Supreme Court has never squarely answered that question, even in cases where lower courts certified habeas classes. But the Trump Administration’s wholesale push to expel noncitizens has forced the question to the center of modern civil rights litigation. The post Habeas Class Actions appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: It has become increasingly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs to vindicate their rights in federal court. Barriers to successful lawsuits are plentiful. Qualified immunity... The post Without Remedies: The Effect of Cummings and the Contract Law Analogy on Antidiscrimination Spending Clause Plaintiffs appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: “[W]here there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .” Although Blackstone’s maxim has led to efforts to redress constitutional violations, courts... The post Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: INTRODUCTION The Ontario Court of Appeal’s (“CA”) recent decision in Knauff v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal) (“ Knauff ”) sought to resolve two CA panels’ disagreement about the continuing relevance of the test for leave to appeal in Sault Dock Co. Ltd. and City of Sault Ste. Marie (Ont. CA) (“Sault Dock”). (I considered the two CA decisions, West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. v. Elexicon Inc. [“ West Whitby ”] and Davis v. Aviva General Insurance Company [“ Davis ”] in my January 7, 2025 Slaw post, “ Tension on the Ontario CA: Thwarting a Judicial Coup? ”.) My focus . . . [more] The post The Court of Appeal’s Consideration of Sault Dock: A New Test, Refinement or More of the Same? appearedfirst on Slaw
: Prison law is characterized by judicial deference to penal administrators. Despite the well-documented horrors that occur behind prison walls, federal and state courts often decline to intervene, asserting, among other things, that prisoners’ rights are limited and that the judicial branch lacks the power and expertise to get involved in the inner workings of detention facilities. Moreover, jurists often assume that the nation’s firstcourts largely stayed out of prisons and jails, and contemporary judicial deference is therefore historically rooted. The post The Forgotten History of Prison Law: Judicial Oversight of Detention Facilities in the Nation’s Early Years appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter , summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted. Appeals Real Property: Riparian Rights Zardev Inc. v. Dydzak, 2026 SCC 27 (41291) Clarifications re riparian rights, submerged lots, accessories. Leave to Appeal Granted Administrative Law/Police: Mandamus Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee, et al. v. Benison, et al ., 2026 FCA 53 . . . [more] The post Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners appearedfirst on Slaw
: As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter , summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted. Leaves to Appeal Granted Professions: Mandatory New Lawyer Oath His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta v. Wirring, 2025 ABCA 413 (42224) Constitutionality of new lawyer oath. . . . [more] The post Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners appearedfirst on Slaw
: UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish [...]