The appellant had pleaded guilty to one count of witness intimidation and was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and putting a person in fear of violence by harassment. These were all committed against the woman that the appellant had been in a relationship with. In total, the appellant was given a sentence of five years' imprisonment, which were consecutive sentences of 21 months for the assault, 12 months for the harassment and 27 months for the witness intimidation. The appeal related to the sentence and whether it was excessive.

A mother and her children, who were all British citizens living abroad, sought judicial review of a refusal by HM Passport Office (“HMPO”) to process passport applications for three of the children. The children's father was from "Country X". The mother moved there when they married, and the children were born and habitually reside there. The father was prosecuted for severe domestic violence and abuse of the mother.

Measures to Guarantee and Promote Equal Opportunities (2013)

On April 28, 2012, the State Council of China issued the Special Rules on the Labor Protection of Female Employees (the “Rules”). These Rules aim to reduce and address the difficulties encountered by women at work due to sex-based physical differences and to protect women’s health. The Rules require employers to improve the labor safety facilities and reduce health concerns.

Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020) specifies the penalties for those who publicly insult others, or defame others by fabricating information. In the model cases against cyberviolence and crimes released by the Supreme People’s Court on September 25, 2023, Article 246 was used as the basis for two model cases involving defamation of character and revenge porn.

The Law on Protection of Minors was enacted to protect the physical and mental health of minors and to ensure their legal rights and interests. Article 3 of the Law stipulates that minors shall have the right to survival, development, protection, and participation and that minors, regardless of gender, shall enjoy these rights equally under the law.

Anti-Domestic Violence Law of the People’s Republic of China (2015)

• PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
• EXHAUSTION
• JURY TRIAL

In cases under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning whether they have exhausted alternative non-legal remedies when the facts required to prove exhaustion are connected to the merits of the claim?

Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit on Constitutional rights claims. Richards v. Perttu at 917. Several circuit courts have affirmed that “administrative exhaustion” requires prisoners to properly go through all steps that an agency holds out. Id.

• Perttu v. Richards Brief: Defending the Right to a Jury Trial for All Americans, Cato Institute (22 January 2025).
• Fox, Mike A., Supreme Court Takes 3 Clinic Cases, UVA Lawyer (Fall 2024). 
• Mellerio, Paige, NACo Legal Advocacy Perttu v. Richards, National Association of Counties News (5 December 2024).

• death penalty
• standing
• declaratory relief
• evidence
• dna testing

For Article III standing purposes, does Ruben Gutierrez have a redressable injury if it is not clear that a declaratory judgment in his favor would allow him to access the DNA evidence he seeks?

Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.

Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder in 1999 for the murder of Escolastica Harrison and was sentenced to death in Texas state court. Gutierrez v. Saenz at 1. Harrison lived in a mobile-home park in Brownsville, Texas with her nephew, who was a friend of Gutierrez.

• Mark Reagan, Supreme Court agrees to hear Ruben Gutierrez’s DNA appeal, myRGV.com (October 4, 2024).
• Leah Roemer, A “Meaningless Ritual”? U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Whether Ruben Gutierrez Can Challenge Texas DNA Testing Procedures to Prove His Innocence, Death Penalty Information Center (October 9, 2024).
• Rachel Rippetoe, Behind High Court's Rare Review Of 2nd Texas Capital Case, Law360 (November 1, 2024).

• SUPERVISED RELEASE
• REVOCATION HEARING
• sentencing
• JUDICIAL DISCRETION
• RETRIBUTIVISM

When determining whether to revoke supervised release, does a district court commit error if it relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)’s sentencing factors despite their absence from 18 U.S.C § 3583(e)’s enumerated list?

Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.

In 1984, through the Sentencing Reform Act (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3583), Congress abolished the federal parole system and created a new form of post-imprisonment supervision called supervised release. 18 U.S.C.

• Brian Dowling, High Court Takes Case On Sentencing For Release Infractions, Law360 (October 21, 2024).
• Douglas A. Berman, Supreme Court grants cert on (im)permissible factors for revocation of supervised release, Sentencing Law And Policy (October 21, 2024).
• Defender Services Office Training Division, Supreme Court Grants Cert On Supervised Release Case, Administrative Office of the United States Courts (October 21, 2024).