Governmental Operations

CSG Midwest
While not technically an occupational license, the certification of police officers is required in most states. The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training defines certification as “the process by which law enforcement officers are licensed in their respective jurisdictions, establishing the satisfaction of selection, training and continuing performance standards.”
In most states, police officer standards and training (POST) commissions establish these standards and carry out certification. They also are responsible for decertification.
Nearly all U.S. states, including all 11 in the Midwest, have existing statutory authority to certify or decertify, according to Roger Goldman, a law professor at Saint Louis University and leading researcher on this issue. (The states without such authority are California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.)

In Comcast v. National Association of African-American Owned Media the Supreme Court held unanimously that a plaintiff who sues under 42 U.S.C. §1981 must plead and prove that race was the but-for cause of his or her injury. This case is particularly relevant to states and local governments as employers. The but-for causation is a standard favorable to employers.

...

Excessive force is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In Torres v. Madrid the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed a Supreme Court amicus ...

The question the Supreme Court will decide in McGirt v. Oklahoma may sound familiar: “whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court agreed to decide this very same question last term in Sharp v. Murphy. But the Court didn’t...

Following Thompson v. Hebdon states with low individual-to-candidate or individual-to-group campaign contribution limits may want to review their constitutionality.

In a per curiam (unauthored) opinion the Supreme Court instructed the Ninth Circuit to decide again whether Alaska law, which limits the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate for political office or to an election-oriented group other than a political party...

When the lines are long and the protesters loud, predicting the path the Supreme Court might take is a perilous practice. Especially if the Justice who voted most in the majority last term—Justice Kavanaugh—is nearly silent.

And yet…when the lawyer arguing that gender identity is covered under Title VII, David Cole, spends most of him time explaining how the case the Court will decide after he wins should be decided—it is hard to suspect his hasn’t already won.

Chapter 8 of The Book of the States 2019 contains the following tables:

Rarely does a Supreme Court case implicate the work of state legislatures like Georgia v. Public.Resource.org. In this case the Court will decide whether a state may copyright statutory annotations.

Georgia, through a Code Revision Commission, made up of the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, members of the Senate and House, and others, contracts with Lexis to draft the statutory annotations published in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA).

Annotations include “history lines, repeal lines, cross references, commentaries, case notations, editor’s notes, excerpts from law review articles, summaries of opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia, summaries of advisory opinions of the State Bar, and other research references.”

The title of this article appears to be deceptive if not flat out wrong as Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media isn’t an employment case. Nevertheless, it presents an important legal question for employers because the law it involves applies to them as such. Understanding the issue in the case—whether a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fails in the absence of but-for causation—requires a little background.

Section 1981, enacted in 1866, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in contracting and employment, among other things. It states “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.”

Before an employee alleging employment discrimination under Title VII (on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) may bring a lawsuit in federal court he or she must file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis the Supreme Court held unanimously that Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is a “mandatory procedural prescription” that a court must consider if timely...

Pages