UCLR Online

Putting aside the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, the case overextending the date for receipt of absentee ballots in the April 2020 Wisconsin primary, many (although not all) courts have done a fairly good job protecting voting rights during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a time when normal life has ground to a halt, it may be reassuring that one American tradition—suing over electoral rules—is still going strong.

The internet has drastically altered our notion of the press.

In a span of less than two months, President Donald Trump removed or replaced multiple inspectors general (“IGs”)—statutorily authorized watchdogs within federal agencies.

It was only a matter of time before the Supreme Court would have to issue a decision on a church’s challenge to a state’s stay-at-home orders.

The thriving mobile-based ride-sharing and food-delivery business in the United States has proven to be fertile grounds for litigation.

The Facebook Oversight Board (the “FOB”) will see you now—well, at least a very small number of a select subset of you.

Now that former Vice President Joe Biden has emerged as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president in the 2020 general election, he and his team have started to think about a possible presidential transition.

On Saturday, March 28, 2020, President Donald Trump floated the possibility of issuing a “quarantine” order for the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut because of their numerous COVID-19 cases.

Despite the prevalence of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment in modern political and legal discourse, few seem to know what’s in the section that immediately follows.

This term, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear and consider Kristin Biel’s case.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”) fundamentally altered United States tax law.