Here’s the domestic legal news we covered this week:
The parties involved in challenging President Donald Trump’s travel ban order filed letter briefs with the US Supreme Court Thursday addressing whether the issue is moot in light of Trump’s September 24
proclamation [JURIST report] that created new restrictions on entry to the US for citizens of eight countries.
The US government filed a brief [text, PDF] arguing that Trump’s proclamation rendered the pending cases, Trump v.
[JURIST] The US Department of Treasury
released a report [text,PDF] Friday suggesting regulations and changes to current laws which affect the US Financial System.
This report is in response to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13772 [press release], which established “Core Principles” for the federal government to strive to within the financial market.
[JURIST] Judge Susan Bolton of the
US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] upheld
President Trump’s pardon [JURIST report] of former Arizona
Sherriff Joe Arpaio [JURIST news archive] and dismissed the contempt case against Arpaio during a hearing Wednesday.
In a brief [text] filed last month, the Department of Justice stated that there was no prior precedent addressing whether a court should vacate a criminal verdict after the defendant received a guilty verdict.
[JURIST] A bipartisan group of US senators
introduced a bill [text] on Wednesday that aims to reduce prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders.
[JURIST] US Attorney General
Jeff Sessions [official profile]
sent a memo [text, PDF] to US Attorneys Wednesday stating that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not extend to discrimination based on gender identity.
Accordingly, Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status.
The US
Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website]
confirmed [letter] on Thursday affirmative action in university admissions is currently under investigation.
Through their questions and various statements during a
one-hour oral argument [transcript, PDF] on Tuesday, most of the
Supreme Court [official website] justices indicated at least some consensus about their opinion of the practice of gerrymandering.