Putting aside the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, the case overextending the date for receipt of absentee ballots in the April 2020 Wisconsin primary, many (although not all) courts have done a fairly good job protecting voting rights during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic led all states to issue regulations aiming to limit the spread of the coronavirus and reduce morbidity and mortality. Alongside the impediments that the “stay at home” and social distancing regulations imposed on citizens’ freedom of movement, worship, and leisure, they also interfered, sometimes significantly, with owners’ property rights.
Like Gaul, tort law is divided into three parts: torts of intent, negligence, and strict liability. At least, that is what most torts professors teach and what many scholars, judges and practitioners suppose.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, all levels of government are considering how to protect public health by keeping people in their homes, even if they can no longer afford their monthly mortgage or rent payments.
On July 9, Dean Kerry Abrams hosted a conversation with Duke Law faculty members on the current state of policing throughout the United States, with an emphasis on how policies and biases impact communities of color.
In “America Has to Count on More than Prayer in the Case of Close Election,” featured on The Hill, Edward B. Foley explores growing concerns that if the upcoming presidential election this November remains unsettled after the results are in, it inevitably will end up like 2000 or worse.