WPR: WJI and state defendants argue crime-victims' constitutional amendment case before Wisconsin Supreme Court.
During arguments Tuesday, Wisconsin Justice Initiative attorney Dennis Grzezinski told justices the case was about the integrity of the process of amending the constitution.
"In order for the voters to have the information that they need, the ballot question needs to be accurate," Grzezinski said. "It needs to be not misleading or ambiguous and needs to inform the voters."
Courthouse News Service: More on the SCOW oral argument in WJI's case challenging the crime victims' constitutional amendment.
Spectrum News 1: Juul settles case with 33 states; Wisconsin will receive $14.4 million as part of settlement.
The settlement also requires Juul to adhere to terms that will “severely” limit marketing and sales practices. Juul will be limited as to where they can display their product and where it can be accessed in stores. Both online and retail sales will be limited. There will be new retail protocols in place and consumers age must be verified on all sales.
Lake Geneva Regional News: Wisconsin Elections Commission approves guidance for election clerks on voters with disabilities receiving help to deliver absentee ballots.
The Washington Post: Document discussing foreign government's nuclear capabilities was found in Mar-a-Lago search.
Slate: What to do about runaway Trump judges.
Legal analysts lit up social media on Monday in response to the broad and potentially devastating order by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee to the Southern District of Florida, temporarily halting the criminal investigation of the former president and his alleged pilfering of classified documents. Her order further authorized a special master to identify and return the small fraction of materials seized in last month’s court-approved search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence that may belong to him. One analyst after another meticulously detailed the failings of Cannon’s reasoning: It was “untethered to the law,” “a political conclusion in search of a legal rationale,” “deeply problematic,” “laughably bad.” At some point, one truly runs out of euphemisms for lawless partisan hackery.
The Conversation: How Justice Samuel Alito's selective history in the Dobbs decision ignores legal history from the female perspective.
Alito argued in the opinion that abortion has always been a serious crime, but there were no laws about abortion at all in Colonial America. Beginning in the 19th century, most states barred it only after “quickening,” when a pregnant woman can first feel the fetus move, typically around the fourth to sixth month of pregnancy.
Abortion is indeed deeply rooted in the American experience and law. American women have always tried to personally determine the size of their families. Enslaved Black women used contraception and abortion as specific strategies of resistance against their physical and reproductive bondage. . . .
Instead of examining abortion through the lens of past cases of gender law, however, Alito instead refers to the opinions of 17th-century male legal theorists, who believed in witches and the right of husbands to rape their wives. He also cites as evidence the passage of 19th-century state abortion laws by all-male legislatures, which criminalized abortion and birth control.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Reviewing a profile of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.
Reuters: Update on Bayer's Roundup litigation.
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin