In this case, Crawford had repeatedly contacted his former partner after the end of their relationship, in excess of hundreds of times. At the trial level, the court expanded the holding in Counterman v. Colorado,600 U.S.
Colorado Statutes Title 24 Article 33.5 Part 26 establishes the Office of the Liaison for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives. The goal of the office is to facilitate technical assistance and work with tribal, local, and federal law enforcement agencies on missing person investigations and homicide cases involving indigenous persons.
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18, Article 3, Part 6 creates the framework for stalking laws in Colorado. A response to stalking can be triggered by making a credible threat and repeatedly following, contacting, approaching, or surveilling a person or their close associates. One can also be found criminally liable for stalking if they make a credible threat and in connection with the threat, repeatedly makes contact with the person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone that person has a close or continuing relationship with.
Can a federal prisoner sue prison medical staff for damages over the care he received for a bone fracture?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a federal prisoner may sue a prison nurse for damages for allegedly ignoring serious medical needs. Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, individuals can sue federal officials directly for constitutional violations even without an explicit authorizing statute. Francis Nielsen, a federal prison nurse, argues that Kekai Watanabe, a former federal prisoner, is unable to sue a federal officer for damages under Bivens and also asks that the Court overrule Bivens. The United States, supporting Nielsen, asks the Court to overrule a prior case that allowed damages claims for prison medical treatment that violates the Eighth Amendment instead of overruling Bivens. Watanabe counters that he is entitled to sue Nielsen because his claim is similar to prior successful damages suits against federal officers for constitutional violations. The outcome will determine whether federal prisoners can hold individual federal prison officials financially responsible for inadequate medical care, and whether Congress or the courts decide when individuals may sue federal officials for constitutional violations.
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred here in recognizing a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics cause of action.
In Bivens v.
When a private pipeline company takes land using the eminent‑domain power delegated to it by Congress in the Natural Gas Act, does state law or the Fifth Amendment determine what the company must pay the landowner as just compensation?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether state or federal law sets the compensation a private pipeline company owes a landowner when the company takes land under the Natural Gas Act. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (“WBI”) took easements across ranchland owned by Leonard W. Hoffmann and other North Dakota landowners. The parties disagreed over whether the company owed attorney’s fees, which North Dakota law permits landowners to recover in condemnation proceedings but federal law generally does not. Hoffmann contends that Congress gave pipeline companies only the right to bring a condemnation lawsuit and that nothing in the Natural Gas Act displaces the property rules of the state where the land sits. WBI, joined by the United States, counters that the definition of “the right of eminent domain” carries with it the Fifth Amendment’s fair market value measure of just compensation, and that a private company exercising the federal power is in the same position as the federal government. This decision will resolve a split between the Eighth Circuit and four other circuits that apply state law to compensation for these condemnations. The outcome will affect the amount of money landowners in pipeline states can recover when their land is taken, and the cost of building interstate pipelines.
Whether in private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act, just compensation should be determined by reference to state law.
In 1938, Congress enacted the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) to regulate the behavior of natural gas companies. The Natural Gas Act: Background, Key Provisions, and Policy Issues. In 1947, after finding that state law often blocked private natural gas projects, Congress amended the NGA to grant approved private natural gas companies the power
Does Article III or the H‑2A statute require the Department of Labor to go to federal court, rather than use its own administrative judges, to make employers pay civil penalties and back wages for violating employment terms promised to H‑2A and domestic workers?
This case asks whether the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) own administrative judges or a federal court should decide whether a farm owes civil penalties and back wages for violating H‑2A program rules. DOL argues that H‑2A enforcement involves public rights that Congress may assign to an agency because it concerns immigration and a government‑granted privilege to hire foreign workers. DOL claims that 8 U.S.C. § 1188(g)(2) authorizes agency proceedings by allowing the Secretary to “impose” penalties directly while requiring the Secretary to “seek” injunctions in court. Sun Valley counters that DOL’s claims resemble common‑law contract suits for money, which involve private rights that only an Article III court may decide. Sun Valley contends that Congress never clearly authorized DOL to decide monetary liability. The case implicates agencies’ discretion to impose monetary penalties outside the courts, the protection of the farmworker labor force, and the cost of defending against government enforcement for small farms.
(1) Whether Article III of the Constitution precludes the Department of Labor from adjudicating proceedings to collect monetary remedies from employers who have allegedly violated the terms and conditions of employment of H‑2A workers and domestic workers in corresponding employment; and (2) whether 8 U.S.C. § 1188(g)(2) authorizes the Department of Labor to adjudicate proceedings to collect monetary remedies from employers who have allegedly violated the terms and conditions of employment of H‑2A workers and domestic workers in corresponding employment.
Congress created the H‑2A program under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) to allow American farms to hire foreign workers on temporary visas.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §24-34-300.5, prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and advertisement regardless of the person’s membership in a protected class. Protected classes include disability, race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, familial status, national origin, and ancestry.
Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 9-5.7-101 et seq., titled Amenities for All Genders in Public Buildings, requires newly constructed buildings owned or partially owned by public entities to have at least one gender-neutral restroom that includes an infant changing station on each floor where restrooms are provided. Renovations to add at least one gender-neutral single-stall restroom or to allow for a multi-stall gender-neutral restroom to currently existing restrooms is required.
The Victims of Unlawful Sexual Behavior, Stalking, Domestic Violence, and Domestic Abuse section of the Tenants and Landlords article provides protections for victim-survivors of sexual violence and abuse. It provides a series of protections such as allowing victim-survivors to break their lease early as a result of sexual violence or abuse, opt-in confidentiality of their residence, and victim confidentiality.
The Colorado Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act provides the framework for divorce in Colorado. Under this title, the goal of the court is to mitigate the harm to both the spouses and children, to standardize the courts’ handling of divorces, and to protect a disabled spouse in the event of dissolution.
