Cases

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2020 ME 123 Docket: Ken-20-262 Argued: October 14, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020 Revised: November 17, 2020 Panel: MEAD, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON,* and CONNORS, JJ. Majority: MEAD, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. Dissent: JABAR, J. ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS et al.1 v.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2020 ME 123 Docket: Ken-20-262 Argued: October 14, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020 Panel: MEAD, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON,* and CONNORS, JJ. Majority: MEAD, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. Dissent: JABAR, J. ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS et al.1 v. SECRETARY OF

461 F.Supp.2d 681 (2006) CHICAGO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, INC., Plaintiff, v. CRAIGSLIST, INC., Defendants. No. 06 C 0657. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. November 14, 2006. *682 Louis Albert Crisostomo, Stephen David Libowsky, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, Elyssa B

616 F.3d 1145 (2010) AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., a Texas non-profit corporation; R. Andrews; S. Clark; and M. Rivers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Scott T. DUNCAN, Colonel, Superintendent of Utah Highway Patrol; Lance Davenport, Superintendent, Utah Highway Patrol, in his official capacity; John Njord, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation; and F. Keith Stepan, Director Division of Facilities Construction and Management Department of Ad

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge, joined by PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. I respectfully dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. Judge Kelly outlines several reasons why this decision is worthy of the full court’s attention. I write to note two more. I Our court has now repeatedly misapplied the “reasonable

637 F.3d 1095 (2010) AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., a Texas non-profit corporation; R. Andrews; S. Clark; M. Rivers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lance DAVENPORT, Superintendent, Utah Highway Patrol; John Njord, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation; F. Keith Stepan, *1096 Director Division of Facilities Construction and Management Department of Administrative Services, Defendants-Appellees, Scott T

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2231 INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, a project of the Urban Justice Center, Inc., on behalf of itself and its clients; HIAS, INC., on behalf of itself and its clients; JOHN DOES #1 & 3; JANE DOE #2; MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., on behalf of itself and its membe

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE, by his guardian and next No. 21-15668 friend, Susan Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly D.C. No. situated, 4:20-cv-00335- Plaintiff-Appellant, SHR v. OPINION JAMI SNYDER, Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, in

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1351 INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, a project of the Urban Justice Center, Inc., on behalf of itself; HIAS, INC., on behalf of itself and its clients; MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., on behalf of itself and its members; MUHAMMED METEAB; PAUL HARRIS

671 F.3d 1052 (2012) Kristin M. PERRY; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIZABETH HUNTER; VERONICA No. 23-35174 BONIFACIO PENALES; ALEX DURON; ZAYN SILVA; RACHEL D.C. No. 6:21-cv- MOULTON; VICTORIA JOY 00474-AA BACON; HAYDEN BROWN; BROOKE C.; GARY CAMPBELL; TRISTAN CAMPBELL; NATALIE OPINION CARTER; RACHEL HELD; LAUREN HOEKSTRA; CHANDLER HORNING; JONATHAN JONES; ASHTIN MARKOWSKI; CAMERON MARTINEZ; MACKENZIE MCCANN; DARREN MCDON

OPINION 1 PER CURIAM: We are asked to delineate the statutory and constitutional limits to the President’s power to control immigration in this appeal of the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining two sections of Executive Order 13780 (“E02” or “the Order”), “Protecting the Nation From Fore

OPINION PER CURIAM: For the third time, we are called upon to assess the legality of the President’s efforts to bar over 150 million nationals of six designated countries 1 from entering the United States or being issued immigrant visas that they w

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge. An unconventional real estate financing scheme presents us with some unconventional legal questions. Questions ranging from whether an Austrian financier should be denied access to the American legal system because he failed to comply with an order freezing his assets worldwide—to whether the district court had the power to issue such a far-flying order

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge GREGORY joined. Judge NIEMEYER wrote a separate dissenting opinion. FLOYD, Circuit Judge: Via various state statutes and a state constitutional amendment, Virginia prevents same-sex couples from marrying and refuses to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Two same-sex couples filed suit to challenge the cons

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANDOLPH WOLFSON, No. 11-17634 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:08-cv-08064- FJM COLLEEN CONCANNON; LOUIS FRANK DOMINGUEZ; PETER J. ECKERSTROM; GEORGE H. FOSTER; OPINION GUSTAVO ARAGON, JR.; ROGER BARTON; S’ LEE HINSHA

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0336p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PRIORITIES USA; RISE, INC.; DETROIT/DOWNRIVER ┐ CHAPTER OF THE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, │ Plaintiffs-Appellees, │

OPINION Opinion by Judge BEA, Circuit Judge: In the 1970s1 Arizona enacted a statute which required each voter who votes in *617person to cast his or her ballot at the precinct polling station at which the voter was registered to vote (the “precinct vote rule”). Since then Arizona has amended its statutes to adopt votin

Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge Plaintiffs challenge two aspects of Arizona's election system: (1) Arizona's policy *832to not count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, which derives from the collective effect of A.R.S. §§ 16-122, -135, -584, and related rules in the Arizona Election Procedures Manual; and (2) Arizona

THOMAS, Chief Judge, dissenting: Arizona has criminalized one of the most popular and effective methods by which minority voters cast their ballots. Because this law violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, I must respectfully dissent. I Like most states, Arizona allows voters to cast a ballot on election day at a polling place, or to cast an early absentee v