Posted on

Unveiling the Law’s Mysteries: Your Key to Justice

pexels rodnae productions 7841492 scaled

In the complex realm of law, where statutes and regulations often seem like an intricate puzzle, having a guiding key to justice is invaluable. Legal matters can be daunting and overwhelming, but with the right assistance like the Turner Freeman Lawyers and understanding, navigating through the labyrinth of legalities becomes more accessible.

Continue reading Unveiling the Law’s Mysteries: Your Key to Justice

Posted on

6 Reasons Why You Might Need a Personal Injury Attorney

iStock 899023642 e1541451103491

If you have been injured in an accident, you may be wondering if you need a personal injury attorney. Many people are hesitant to hire an attorney, thinking that they can handle the case on their own. However, there are many reasons why hiring an attorney might be the best decision for you and your case. In this blog post, we will discuss six of the most common reasons why people need a personal injury attorney.

Continue reading 6 Reasons Why You Might Need a Personal Injury Attorney

Posted on

Looking For A Bergen County Lawyer? Here Are Some Helpful Tips


If you need a Bergen County lawyer, you may be feeling overwhelmed by all the options available to you. How do you know which lawyer is right for you? What should you look for when choosing a lawyer? In this article, we will provide some tips that will help make the process easier for you. Keep reading to learn more!

Continue reading Looking For A Bergen County Lawyer? Here Are Some Helpful Tips

Posted on

A Comprehensive Dictionary of a Criminal Procedure: Differences Between Felonies

external content.duckduckgo 11

There are many differences between a felony and a misdemeanor. In general, felonies are more serious crimes than misdemeanors and carry harsher penalties. However, there is no single definition of a felony or misdemeanor, and the distinction can vary from state to state. This article provides an overview of the differences between felonies and misdemeanors, based on federal law.

Continue reading A Comprehensive Dictionary of a Criminal Procedure: Differences Between Felonies

Posted on

Getting the Compensation That You Deserve Through the Legal Process

iStock 899023642 e1541451103491

Most accidents happen unexpectedly – although many of us aim to be careful to avoid accidents and injuries that occur as a result, this is not always possible, and if it is due to someone else’s negligence, this will be out of our control.

Some of us are aware of this possibility and we take cautions where we can, for example adapting defensive driving guidelines on the road or adhering to the health and safety policies in the workplace. However, it is unfortunate that, no matter how cautious we are, accidents are still a possibility and this may have serious negative effects on your life and that of your loved ones.

Continue reading Getting the Compensation That You Deserve Through the Legal Process

Posted on

Facebook revenge pornography trial ‘could open floodgates’


by Alexandra Toppin

Case of 14-year-old taking social network to court over naked picture has already resulted in others seeking legal advice

A legal case against Facebook, which will involve a 14-year-old taking the company to court in Belfast over naked images published on the social network, could open the floodgates for other civil claims, according to lawyers who work with victims of revenge pornography.

Facebook’s forthcoming trial, which centres on the claim that it is liable for the publication of a naked picture of the girl posted repeatedly on a “shame page” as an act of revenge, has alarmed the tech world and could have a seismic impact on how social media companies deal with explicit images.

The case has already resulted in victims of revenge pornography seeking advice about whether they too could have grounds for legal action, according to Paul Tweed, media lawyer and senior partner at the law firm Johnsons.

Posted on

What Scalia Taught Us


Paul J. Larkin Jr. / February 13, 2016


Paul J. Larkin Jr.

Paul J. Larkin Jr. directs The Heritage Foundation’s project to counter abuse of the criminal law, particularly at the federal level, as senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

Antonin Gregory Scalia has died. For some, it is the painful loss of a husband or father. For those who knew him, it is the loss of a good friend. For law students, it is the loss of a justice who wrote opinions with rigorous analysis, clarity of expression, and at times an acerbic wit.

For conservatives, it is the loss of a standard-bearer and icon. For liberals, it is the loss of an opponent who always fought hard but fair.

For those who never had the opportunity to know him, it is the loss of one of our greatest legal minds, of a judge and justice who had made, and will continue to make, legal history. And to those who were privileged to know him, it is the loss of a wonderful human being.

More than 100 men and women have been justices of the Supreme Court. All decided the outcome of individual cases and made small changes in the law.

Few changed its course.

Some—such as Joseph Story, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, William Brennan, and William Rehnquist—will be remembered for moving the Supreme Court in one direction or another.

They launched the court into its existence as an institution. They addressed some of the most important issues that can arise under our Constitution—issues involving the separation of powers, freedom of speech and religion, the integrity of the criminal justice process, and the relationship between government and the nation. They established the Supreme Court—rightly or wrongly—as one of the most powerful institutions in our nation. Their tenure still has a powerful effect today.

But even fewer justices changed the course of the law. John Marshall was one. Antonin Scalia was another.

Scalia taught us that the law matters, that the law is the written word, and that the written word takes its meaning from how history understands it, not what we wish it might mean.

For him, the law was a tablet whose meaning could be discerned by focusing on the meaning of the words it contained, rather than by asking ourselves what we want it to mean. The latter, he said, was the stuff of politics, not law, and he drew a line in the sand between the two.

He maintained that view of a judge’s role even when it was unfashionable to hold that belief because it may lead to outcomes we may not like. But he believed that it was his duty to uphold the rule of law, because only that rule separated us from the many nations on the Earth governed by the rule of might.

Robert F. Kennedy once said that the privilege of public service carried with it the opportunity to bend history.

Not only did Antonin Scalia bend it; he turned it in a different direction. We will be forever grateful to him for that. Requiescat in pace.


Posted on

Obama’s Executive Action Is Good Policy, Bad Law, and Terrible Precedent

Obama’s Executive Action Is Good Policy, Bad Law, and Terrible Precedent

In an excellent speech combining reasoned policy arguments, appeals to American ideals, touching anecdotes, and well-selected Scripture, President Obama launched significantpositive reforms to an immigration (non-)system that I’ve long called the worst part of the U.S. government (at least before Obamacare). Unfortunately, the centerpiece of this action, the legalization of around five million people who are in the country illegally—mostly the parents of U.S. citizens and green-card holders—is beyond the powers of the president acting alone.

To be sure, the relevant statutes give executive branch officials very broad discretion in how they enforce immigration laws. For example, Section 212(d)(5)(A) gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the “case-by-case” discretion to “parole” for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” an alien applying for admission. The authorization for “deferred action”—a decision not to seek deportation and concomittant authorization to reside and work legally, which was the basis for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program—is similarly broad.

And all modern presidents, from both parties, have used such discretionary powers. President Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department issued regulations to comport with the family-unity provisions of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. President George H.W. Bush temporarily expanded the category of undocumented children and spouses eligible to stay in the country before Congress formalized their status. President Bill Clinton deferred action on illegal immigrants from Haiti during that country’s convulsions in the 1990s—one example of many relating to executive discretion regarding nationals of war-torn nations—while President George W. Bush took various actions regarding illegal aliens in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. These are just a few examples, but they’re all different from what President Obama is doing, both qualitatively—discrete and temporary versus open-ended and potentially timeless—and quantitatively. (See here and here for contrasts between Reagan/Bush and Obama.)

But don’t take it from me. Here are a few solid arguments that were made by a noted constitutional lawyer over the last several years:

“Comprehensive reform, that’s how we’re going to solve this problem…. Anybody who tells you it’s going to be easy or that [the president] can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.” (March 10, 2010)
“America is a nation of laws, which means [the President is] obligated to enforce the law…. With respect to the notion that [the president] can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed…. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with [Obama’s] appropriate role as President.” (March 28, 2011)
“If this was an issue that [the president] could do unilaterally, [Obama] would have done it a long time ago…. The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. [The president] then get[s] an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (Jan. 30, 2013)

These are but three examples of the 22 times that this particular analyst of executive power has argued that the president can’t do what he just announced. Who is this person with such strong feelings that he’s felt the need to opine so many times on this? Barack Obama.

There comes a time even under statutes that are ambiguous or open-ended that executive discretion ceases to be a lawful execution of the law and becomes a suspension or re-writing of it. It’s very difficult to articulate where that line is, but my view is that President Obama is on the other side of it. He’s set a dangerous precedent for executive action, one in which the president somehow gets more power when Congress isn’t acting (as ifgridlock were a bug in our system of checks-and-balances, not a feature).

Accordingly, while the applicable immigration laws give the president discretion that’s quite broad, either (1) this executive action goes beyond even that broad grant of power, or (2) the laws themselves are an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. After all, Congress could not constitutionally pass a law saying, “The president is now dictator and can make any laws he wishes”—even temporarily or regarding but one area of policy. So if the administration’s defenders are right that President Obama is toeing but not crossing the letter of the law, then that letter is invalid and the president’s actions are still unconstitutional.

Ultimately, more than enough blame goes to Congress for not fixing this mess of an immigration system that serves nobody’s interests—not big business or small, not skilled or unskilled workers, not the economy or national security—but that doesn’t justify what the president is doing. And in acting like he has, President Obama—who as a senator in 2007 voted against the guest-worker program that would have sealed the Bush-era compromise—has eviscerated any chance for real, legislated immigration reform.

I guess we’ll have to wait for President Ted Cruz to accomplish that in a latter-day Nixon-to-China moment.

For an excellent point-by-point analysis of the Office of Legal Counsel memo justifying the president’s action—OLC is the Justice Department’s elite unit responsible for advising the government on the legality of various actions—see Josh Blackman’s post from last night.