Setting a precedent with important implications today, the Supreme Court’s decision from 1997 in Printz v. United States reaffirms states’ rights and the Constitution’s anti-commandeering provisions.
How will the Supreme Court’s recent decision about sports betting influence conflicts between federal and state laws? One area where it directly could see an impact is in the areas of regulating medical and recreational marijuana use.
The Supreme Court started the process of releasing significant decisions from its current term on Monday, with a much-anticipated ruling on sports betting taking center stage.
A group of 13 states wants the Supreme Court to directly take its complaints about new California egg laws that have blocked the sale of out-of-state eggs there that don’t meet certain cage conditions.
One of the bigger cases of the current Supreme Court term pits federal control over legalized sports betting versus state’s rights. And there are signs after Monday’s arguments at the Court a change could be coming to the gambling world.
A federal judge in California has issued a permanent national injunction against a Trump administration executive order against “sanctuary cities,” likely setting up a Supreme Court showdown in the near future.
In a 128-page ruling, a federal judge said on Wednesday that the Justice Department can’t withhold grant funding from Philadelphia for not complying with federal “sanctuary city” polices.
Another city is suing the Trump administration over its policy of linking policing grants to compliance with an executive order about sanctuary cities.
The city of Chicago is taking the Trump administration to court in a lawsuit that makes a series of constitutional claims stated in other sanctuary city cases.
United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to release a report this week that may urge more federal interdiction against state-level medical marijuana programs – a move that would raise some compelling legal and policy questions.