News & Updates

List of news articles

Showing 1541 - 1560 out of 2130 results

  • Tenth Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of Kansas Merit Selection System

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that rejected a constitutional challenge to the state’s merit selection system. Opponents of the process argued that having five lawyers on the nine-member supreme court nominating commission, who are not popularly elected or appointed by an elected official, violates the Equal Protection Clause’s “one person, one vote” requirement.

  • Senate Confirms Stephanie Rose as U.S. District Court Judge

    The U.S. Senate voted to approve, by an 89-1 vote, Stephanie Rose as a U.S. district court judge. To date, President Obama has appointed 72 women to the federal bench, which is the most ever appointed by a president in a single term. Rose is the first woman to serve on the Southern District of Iowa.

  • Albany Law Review Symposium: "The State of State Courts"

    This year, Albany Law Review's annual State Constitutional Commentary Symposium features articles from IAALS Advisory Committee Members, including Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, and Meryl Chertoff.

  • Western District of Pennsylvania Introduces Pilot Program for Expedited Litigation

    On August 30th, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania introduced a new Pilot Program designed to expedite civil cases filed in that district. Modeled loosely on the Northern District of California's program, the Pennsylvania District's Pilot Program is aimed at relatively simple civil cases, which do not require lengthy and expensive pretrial and trial proceedings.

  • GOP chair Launches Campaign to Oust Iowa Supreme Court Justice

    The state Republican Party chair called for voters to remove one of four supreme court justices standing for retention in November. Justice David Wiggins participated in the 2009 unanimous ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state, and three of his colleagues lost their bids for retention in 2010.

  • Florida Bar Responds to Ousting Efforts

    Twenty-three past presidents of the Florida Bar signed a resolution denouncing the effort by Restore Justice 2012 to oust three supreme court justices standing for retention in November. The bar also released a poll of attorneys showing strong support for retaining the justices, whose average approval rating was 90 percent, and the 15 court of appeals judges on the ballot.

  • Missouri Bar Recommends Voters Oust County Judge

    The Missouri Bar’s judicial-review committee has released evaluations of the 51 judges standing for retention in November, recommending against the retention of Judge Dale W. Hood. Judge Hood also received a “not be retained” recommendation in 2008 but was retained by 54 percent of the vote.

  • West Virginia Declares Rescue Funds Unconstitutional (Updated)

    In a unanimous ruling, the supreme court of appeals declared unconstitutional the matching or “rescue” funds provision of the state’s pilot public financing program. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the matching funds provision of Arizona’s public financing program for legislative and executive campaigns.

  • The Battle for Chief Justice Continues in Louisiana

    In the dispute over who should replace Kitty Kimball as chief justice when she steps down in early 2013, a federal district court judge ruled that Justice Bernice Johnson’s service from 1994 to 2000 as part of a civil rights case settlement should count toward her seniority. Attorneys for the state had argued that the issue should be decided by the state supreme court, and they have appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

  • Pennsylvania: Lawyers pay judges travel costs

    According to financial disclosure forms, five of the seven justices serving on the supreme court in 2011 accepted travel or hospitality that was often provided by attorney associations whose members might appear before the court. Some legal scholars question the propriety of such arrangements.