It also names specific campus incidents in which it says the university restricted free speech, including a controversial event organized by the university group Young Conservatives of Texas called Catch an Illegal Immigrant, which got scrapped in 2013. The group had planned to have volunteers walk around campus with a label that said "illegal immigrant," and students who "caught" them would win gift cards. Backlash on campus spurred UT to issue a statement saying that if the group carried out the activity they would be "willfully ignoring the honor code."

The LII Supreme Court Bulletin is LII's free Supreme Court email-based subscriber and web-based publication service.[17] The Bulletin provides subscribers with two distinct services.[18] The first is a notification service. LII Bulletin emails subscribers with timely notification of when the US Supreme Court has handed down a decision.[19] It also provides subscribers links to the full opinions of those cases on the LII site.[19]
Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, but prevalent in many other countries, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal, due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts (the "invited error" problem). The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, a party who does not raise an issue of fact at the trial court level generally cannot raise it on appeal.
The Fair Housing Program helps any person who has been discriminated against in the rental, sale, financing or appraisal of housing. The state and federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination because of a person’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability (mental or physical), or familial status. For Austin residents, additional protections include marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, or status as a student.
Tell the story behind the litigation: At the heart of litigation efforts are stories of injustice to real people.  Our campaigns have sought to use the emotional resonance of the injustice of real stories as crucial ways to make our case and grow support.  Edie Windsor in the DOMA case was a compelling figure – and with a smart media strategy behind her, her story became a face of the injustice of DOMA and the need to dismantle it once and for all.   While the media loves covering the ins and outs of the court process and politics, what moves hearts and minds are people’s actual stories. It’s certainly wise to elevate the story that’s being discussed in the litigation.  It’s also wise to identify and amplify similar stories of injustice in the state and across the country similar to the story being considered in court.   
It does seem crazy, but when you read the cases and the opinions of the judges, including Republican judges, that’s what they found in so many instances. It’s hard to tell whether the agencies knew that they were out on a limb with so many of these decisions and went ahead anyway, or didn’t have competent legal advice. Some experts, as the article said, thought that the failure of some agencies to “do their homework” as they suspended or delayed regulations, for example, showed that they were more interested in making announcements of deregulatory change than in the change itself, so the risk of a judge blocking their actions didn’t concern them all that much. Of course, the agency spokespeople deny that. But lawyers know, for example, that the law sometimes requires public notice and comment when making regulatory change. It’s not hard. It just slows things down. But if they fail to do it, it’s almost a certainty that a judge will object. These are not close calls. Now some of the cases, like the census case (the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census), are much more complex than what I’m describing and raise deeper issues, which we continue to pursue.
Tell the story behind the litigation: At the heart of litigation efforts are stories of injustice to real people.  Our campaigns have sought to use the emotional resonance of the injustice of real stories as crucial ways to make our case and grow support.  Edie Windsor in the DOMA case was a compelling figure – and with a smart media strategy behind her, her story became a face of the injustice of DOMA and the need to dismantle it once and for all.   While the media loves covering the ins and outs of the court process and politics, what moves hearts and minds are people’s actual stories. It’s certainly wise to elevate the story that’s being discussed in the litigation.  It’s also wise to identify and amplify similar stories of injustice in the state and across the country similar to the story being considered in court.   
NEW YORK, April 5- A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday rejected Expedia Inc's request for an injunction that would have required United Airlines to continue providing fare data for flights after Sept. 30, when the companies' contract ends. An injunction would have required United, part of Chicago- based United Continental Holdings Inc, to provide Expedia with...
A lawsuit begins when a complaint or petition, known as a pleading,[6] is filed with the court. A complaint should explicitly state that one or more plaintiffs seek(s) damages or equitable relief from one or more stated defendants, and also should state the relevant factual allegations supporting the legal claims brought by the plaintiff(s). As the initial pleading, a complaint is the most important step in a civil case because a complaint sets the factual and legal foundation for the entirety of a case. While complaints and other pleadings may ordinarily be amended by a motion with the court, the complaint sets the framework for the entire case and the claims that will be asserted throughout the entire lawsuit.
×