: In recent years, the Supreme Court has developed the “major questions doctrine,” an interpretive presumption that Congress must speak clearly before delegating to an... The post The Compatibility of Substantive Canons and Originalism appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: 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 appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: If the Warren Court reflected nearly twenty years of jurisprudence dismantling ugly systems of oppression and institutional injustice that embedded invidious practices and policies into American law and society... The post Medina v. Planned Parenthood: The Supreme Court’s Making of the New Jane Crow appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Earlier this year, a motion at the Ontario Superior Court paused while everyone in the room went looking for a quotation. The factum on one side quoted a decision of the Court of Appeal, and opposing counsel could not find the quoted words anywhere in that decision. He suspected the factum had been drafted with AI. The judge called a short recess, so the party who filed it could go and find the passage. [1] The citation was correct, and anyone who looked it up would have found exactly the case named. In this instance, AI produced a fake quotation . . . [more] The post Beyond Fake Cases: The Other Ways AI Is Going Wrong in Canadian Courts appeared first 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 [...]