Back to Top
Latest Documents
Punton’s Shoes Pty Ltd v CITI-CON (VIC) Pty Ltd & ANORWillis, Brian C, Resolving Disputes by Expert Determination: What Happens When Parties Select Appraisers, Accountants, or Other Technical Experts to Decide Disputes200615 – Judgement: Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia re discrimination in the workplace based on sexuality200618 – Judgement: Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California et alInghams Enterprises Pty Limited v Hannigan [2020] NSWCA 82Measuring the Value and Service Outcomes of Social Infrustructure PPPs in Australia and New Zealand Report – Infrastructure Partnerships Australia200420 Ramos v Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion (re the Doctrine of Precedent)200410 Harvard Law Review – Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. v. Beshear, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019)200413 Federal District Court of Arkansas: File for Preliminary Injunction against Alaska COVID-19 Abortion Ban200413 5th Circuit Court of Appeals: 2nd Writ of Mandamus permitting200410 Planned Parenthood Center for Choice et al v. Abbott et al – Plaintiff’s Emergency Application to Justice Alito at the Supreme Court of the United States to: VACATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT200410 Planned Parenthood Center for Choice et al v. Abbott et al – Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas200330 Planned Parenthood Center for Choice et al v. Abbott et al – District Court Order Granting Plaintiffs Request for Temporary Restraining Order200325 Planned Parenthood Center for Choice et al v. Abbott et al – Plaintiffs Original ComplaintJUNE MEDICAL SERVICES v. STEPHEN RUSSO, INTERIM SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS – Oral Arguments 04/03/2020Trump’s ‘Peace Policy’ towards Palestine and Israel Conflict – Siti Rabi’atun Mat Adri 2020Wielding Antidiscrimination Law to Suppress the Movement for Palestinian Rights – Harvard Law Review 2020The Palestinian Problem – The Search for Statehood and the Benefits of International Law – Adam G. YoffieReport on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential ElectionA Brief Outine of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict 2001

Category Archives: US Supreme Court: Roe v Wade

200615 – Judgement: Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia re discrimination in the workplace based on sexuality

Justice Gorsuch delivered the 6-3 majority judgment (Roberts CJ, and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan JJ joining, Alito J, Thomas J, Kavanaugh J dissenting) in Bostock v Clayton County, extending the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to gay and transgender discrimination. His Honour opened:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Continue Reading

Citation: Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

Editorial Note – Samantha Hodgson

Dissenting Opinion of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

The late Justice Antonin Scalia maintained the position that Roe v Wade fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since.” This Justice was against “the abortion-umpiring” business to which the Court was now accustomed. In 2020, June Medical Services, LLC v Russo (formerly Gee) brings to the Court the same argument that states and practitioners have had since Roe. The opinions of Justice Scalia give a different perspective to the decade long argument. His manner of thinking often contradicts that of his colleagues.

Continue Reading