Posted 03 Nov 2016 in Case Notes, Commentary
In Texas, state law requires most people under age 25 to attend a state-licensed private driver education school to obtain a driver’s license. None of the schools accommodate deaf students. So a number of deaf students sued the Texas Education Agency (TEA) arguing it was required to bring the driver education schools into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).    In Ivy v. Morath the Supreme Court was supposed to decide when state and local governments are responsible for ensuring that a private actor complies with the ADA. The Court dismissed the case concluding it was moot most likely because Texas claimed that four of the students suing completed the driver education course and one moved out of state.

Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 31 Oct 2016 in Case Notes, Commentary
The Supreme Court keeps on accepting First Amendment cases—perhaps because among the current Court there is much agreement on the First Amendment, so being down a Justice doesn’t matter. This does not bode well for state and local governments, like North Carolina in this case. For better or worse, this case like Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, accepted in September, gives the Supreme Court a chance to refine its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (2015).

Posted 31 Oct 2016 in Case Notes, Commentary
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide cases accusing federal government officials at the highest levels of mistreating people investigated for possible terrorist connections after 9/11. All Supreme Court qualified immunity cases, including Ziglar v. Turkmen, Ashcroft v. Turkmen, and Hasty v. Turkmen, affect state and local governments. These cases raise issues that frequently come up in run-of-the-mill qualified immunity cases, in particular, whether the court defined the “established law” at a high level of generality instead of considering the specific facts of the case when deciding whether to grant or deny qualified immunity.