Section 79(1) of the Education Act provides that the Minister of Education must refuse to issue an operational permit to the proprietor or principal of a private educational facility if any staff member employed by that private educational facility has been convicted of child molestation or any other sexual offense involving children.
The Child Protection and Adoption Act requires mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse cases by professionals involved in various areas of a child’s development, including education specialists and health care professionals. It also established the Child Protection Authority, which addresses certain child protection matters and regulates foster care and adoption. The Act can also provide support to victims of child abuse.
May a habeas petitioner file a new petition while a current petition is pending without having first received authorization from the court of appeals?
This case asks whether a habeas petitioner may file a new petition while a current petition is pending without having first received authorization from the court of appeals. Rivers, who was convicted of child sex crimes, filed a habeas corpus petition that was denied by the district court. While this petition was pending appellate review, Rivers filed a second habeas petition, which the district court held was successive and thus unable to be submitted without authorization from the appellate court. Rivers argues that a motion to appeal or amend a habeas petition is not successive under Section 2242. Guerrero counters that only arguments contained within the first petition can be considered without authorization from the appellate court and that Rivers’s new arguments render the second petition successive. The outcome of this case has significant implications for the strain on the legal system and fair opportunity for review of convictions.
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.
In 2012, Petitioner Danny Richard Rivers was convicted in Texas state court for child sex crimes. Rivers v.
Does the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision give Medicaid beneficiaries a private right to choose their provider?
This case asks the Court to determine when an individual, private right is enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. South Carolina’s executive order deems abortion clinics enrolled in the Medicaid program as unqualified to provide family planning services. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and its patient, Julie Edwards, contend that the executive order violates Ms. Edwards’s right to choose a qualified provider under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23), the any-qualified-provider provision. South Carolina counters that the any-qualified-provider fails to create a private right of action enforceable through § 1983 because Congress did not use unambiguously clear rights-creating language. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for Medicaid beneficiaries and providers, the implementation of state and federal healthcare policy goals, and the litigation of private rights.
Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.
The Medicaid Act provides medical assistance to certain individuals and families who cannot cover the cost of necessary medical services due to insufficient income and resources. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Medina, 95 F.4th 152 at 156 (4th Cir.
Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) allow federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority consistent with the Fifth Amendment?
The Supreme Court will consider whether the personal jurisdiction subsection of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Fuld argues that early laws like the Judiciary Act of 1789 show that Congress can give courts the ability to adjudicate extraterritorial conduct. The Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) and the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) argue the Fifth Amendment only allows courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreigners with a presence in the U.S. and that early statutes required physical control over people or property within the U.S. as a prerequisite to jurisdiction. Fuld asserts that the PSJVTA’s clear notice makes the PLO’s conduct a manifestation of consent to jurisdiction. The PLO contends that consent requires a voluntary act, and that the PSJVTA lacks U.S. nexus and fair notice, violating due process. The outcome of this case will likely determine whether Fuld can recover, as well as frame the future of personal jurisdiction for terrorism in foreign countries.
Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992 (“ATA”) allows Americans to sue a person who aids and abets or conspires to commit an act of international terrorism. Fuld v.
The authors would like to thank Professor Michael Dorf for his insights and comments in writing this article.
Does Wisconsin violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization a tax exemption available under the state’s unemployment compensation system to organizations that are church-controlled and operated for primarily religious purposes?
This case asks the Court to determine whether Wisconsin violates the Constitution’s First Amendment by denying a particular religious organization a tax exemption under Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation system. Catholic Charities argues that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of the statute to deny the organization an exemption violates the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Specifically, Catholic Charities argues that the court’s decision violates the church’s autonomy, entangles the state in religious matters, and discriminates among religions for their church organizational structure and their distinct religious beliefs and practices. Wisconsin, on the other hand, maintains that the exemption and its interpretation effectuate no constitutional violations. Wisconsin argues that the exemption and the court’s interpretation do not infringe on the church’s autonomy, do not cause the state to become excessively entangled in religion, and do not discriminate among religions. This case directly calls for a balancing of church and state interests while also having implications for both charities and unemployment insurance on a large scale.
Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
In 1932, Wisconsin passed the nation’s first unemployment compensation statute, Wisconsin Statute § 108.02(15). Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State at 16. The statute implemented unemployment compensation coverage for unemployed workers.
Law on changing first names and determining gender in special cases (Transsexuellengesetz – TSG) - entered into force on January 1, 1981. Repealed and replaced November 2024
The Sexual Offences Act (Cap. 154) criminalizes various sexual offences in Barbados, emphasizing consent, age, and coercion.
Section 36 and 52 German Limited Liability Companies Act (Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung - GmbHG) - entered into force on August 12, 2021. Amended on October 23, 2024.
Section 219a German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB) Repealed
With effect to July 11, 2022, Section 219a of the German Criminal Code prohibiting the promoting of abortions in medical facilities was repealed without replacement by the legislator. Accordingly, doctors can now refer to the offer of an abortion in their practice.
