- published: 22 Sep 2016
- views: 17
Sonya Madison and Jonathan Mason discuss the SCOTUS' decision not to review NC Election laws, and why such laws were challenged.
On Friday, July 28th, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Court overturned an earlier decision made by North Carolina's Middle District Judge Thomas Schroeder, which upheld GOP lawmakers decision in 2013 to strengthen voter identification laws. The intent of the law was to prevent voter fraud by requiring certain types of photo identification to be presented to vote. The laws also restricted early voting and eliminated same-day voter registration. The 4th Circuit (Federal) Appellate Court (headed up by one Mr. Roger Gregory, ultimately decided on by Diana Motz, James Wynn Jr, and Henry Floyd) decided to overturn the lower court's decision because of information discovered that the laws were intended to target African American voters in an effort to disenfranch...
Watch Andrew Ranger celebrate and talk briefly about his win Sunday, July 3, 2016, at Circuit ICAR. It was his 22nd win in the NASCAR Pinty's Series, and fourth in six tries at the Quebec road course. [Wind issues during post-race comments]
NC’s voter ID law faces a tough hurdle with skeptical Fourth Circuit
NC’s voter ID law faces a tough hurdle with skeptical Fourth Circuit
CLF Counsel Elliot Engstrom joins Mark Shiver on "What Matters in North Carolina" to talk about HB2 and last week's Fourth Circuit ruling about Title IX.
On Wednesday, Marsh 25, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, heard the lawsuit of Kolbe v Hogan (Previously Kolbe v O’Malley). This lawsuit was brought by MSI, The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, The NRA, The Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, two firearms dealers and two Maryland citizens. The three-judge panel listened to both sides and asked some very good questions that raised some very good points. We are cautiously optimistic as we await the court’s decision, which should be releaed in 60 – 90 days, give or take. To become a member of Maryland Shall Issue® Inc. please visit our online membership application: https://marylandshallissue.com/members/join-now
Attorneys representing individuals detained under a federal law as sexually dangerous persons discuss the case in which the Fourth Circuit invalidated as unconstitutional the relevant federal statute. Professor H. Jefferson Powell provides counterarguments and commentary. Recorded on February 24, 2009. Full title: The Constitutionality of Federal Detention of Sexually Dangerous Persons: A Fourth Circuit Case. Appearing: H. Jefferson Powell, Jane Pearce and two unidentified panelists.
This is the 4th circuits oral arguments challenging the legality of banning certain rifles due to appearance, and limiting the capacity of the firearms to a certain number of rounds.
In this Knowledge Seminar we examine U.S. Courts of Appeals. Learn about processes, court culture and landmark cases. Panelists include: Circuit Judge Roger Gregory, U.S. Court of Appeals-Fourth Circuit; Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals-Ninth Circuit; Margaret "Peggy" Carter, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals-First Circuit; and Leeann Yufanyi, Deputy Chief, Court Services Office, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Recorded on March 31, 2016 in Washington, DC.
FLW Circuit Breaker chronicles the fourth Walmart FLW Tour event of the 2015 season at Lake Eufaula. After a lackluster practice, Mark Daniels, Jr. only found two key areas to fish on game day. Meanwhile, other top anglers such as Bryan Thrift are running and gunning all over the entire lake, hitting 80-100 brush piles they’ve graphed. Can MDJ’s program produce enough quality fish to compete against the rest of the field? Streaming in 4K resolution on Ultra High Definition TVs where available. Search 'FLW Circuit Breaker' in your smart TV's YouTube app. Enjoy! Find more Circuit Breaker episodes at: http://bit.ly/CircuitBreakerPlaylist
The final round of the 2015 Hardt Cup Tournament. Finalists Jordan Glassberg '17 and Will Hawkins '17, argue before Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit), Chief Judge James C. Dever III '87 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina) and Circuit Judge Allyson K. Duncan '75 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit). Sponsored by the Moot Court Board.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, in a unanimous 8--0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them. Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court. While Hustler magazine has always been known for its explicit pictures o...
A panel of three appellate judges, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit headed the panel, which included Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, decides which team has the more persuasive argument, based on an appeal of the Ninth Circuit's en banc opinion in Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights v. City & County of San Francisco. The finalists are Sarah Boyce '12, Chris Ford '12, Phil Aubart '13, and Oscar Shine '13.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them. Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court. While Hustler magazine has always been known for its explicit pictures of...