🇪🇺🏳️🌈⚖️🇭🇺 A legal earthquake - CJEU finds Hungary to have violated EU law on multiple counts with its anti-LGBT+ legislation (as expected) but also for the first time in history, in an EU law-reshaping precedent, finds Hungary to violate Art 2 TEU in a self-standing manner.
Much of the reasoning in NY Times v. Sullivan turned on the insight that letting public officials sue for defamation on common law liability standards rhymed with seditious libel. The Court was right, but the insight carries further than requiring public officials to plead and prove actual malice.
Did Trump actually “save HBCUs?
Read more at @contrabandcamp.bsky.social
Centre for Law and History Research Workshop on *Law, History and Reproduction' 1 May 2026, 10 am to 5 pm BST @ Room 2.13, Wills Memorial Building, University of Bristol Law School, BS8 1RJ Contact: Dr Gauri Pillai (gauri.pillai@bristol.ac.uk) and Dr Elena Caruso elena.caruso@bristol.ac.uk)
PROGRAM 10:00-10:30 Coffee and introduction by the organisers Session 1 10:30 - 11:15 am Dr Angela Kintominas, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney, 'A Hidden History of Women's Work: Excavating the Regulation of Reproductive Labour Across Work, Welfare and Migration Legal Regimes in Australia' (online) Discussant: Dr Katie Cruz, Law School, University of Bristol. 11:20 - 12:05 pm Francesca Frisone, University of Messina, Defining the indefinable. Obstetric and gynaecological violence in Italy from an historical point of view' Discussant: Professor John Foot, Department of Italian School of Modern Languages, University of Bristol. 12:10 - 12:55 pm Desi Yunitasari and Devi Yusvitasari, Melbourne Law School 'Gender-Based Violence and Reproductive Criminalisation: Feminist Interventions in the Legal History of Reproduction in Indonesia' (online) Discussant: Dr. Gauri Pillai, Law School, University of Bristol. Lunch 13:00 - 14:15 pm Lunch at Moltobuon!' for authors and discussants (Moltobuono 59 Park St, Bristol BS1 5NU) Session 2 14:15 - 15:00 pm Anisha Aggarwal, Vinoj Manning, Ami Sahgal 'Do Laws Carry History? A Study of Abortion in the Indian Subcontinent' (online) Discussant: Dr Andrea Espinoza Carvajal, Department of Hispanic, Portuguese and Latin American Studies School of Modern Languages, University of Bristol 15:05 - 15:50 pm Dr Kay Crosby, Newcastle University UK Legal Gender Recognition in the 1920s and 1930s' Discussant: Professor Lois S. Bibbings, Law School, University of Bristol 15:55 - 16:40 pm Dr Andreana Dibben (University of Malta), 'Repeating the Script: Moral-Legal Discourses, Feminist Mobilisation, and Reproductive Governance in the MAP and Bill 28 processes in Malta' Discussant: Professor Sally Sheldon, Law School, University of Bristol 16:45 - 17:00 pm Closing remarks by the organisers
I’m very much looking forward to speaking at this event on legal histories of reproductive justice at the University of Bristol next week. My paper is far less well developed than I’d hoped, but I think there’s still enough there for an interesting discussion.
“Parents must realize that refusing vaccinations doesn’t just put your own child at risk. It puts other children” esp. those too young to be vaccinated “at risk….It’s one of the most contagious viruses that exists”
Dead from complications of measles at age ten (she contracted measles at 5 months).
“The "Messy" Plaintiffs Behind So Many Anti-Abortion Lawsuits”
“at the same time that Mitchell was promoting his client as a symbol of aggrieved fathers-to-be, the Galveston man was evading a felony arrest warrant for allegedly beating up the girlfriend whose abortions he claimed to mourn.”
You gotta accept it, Jonah. You're too old to yell "Chuck Norris!" and then roundhouse random people in public. In your 40s, you could pull it off. No more.
"In no uncertain terms, the district court's injunction will alter who can cast a ballot in this election." Thank you for illustrating the absurdity of what the "Purcell Principle" has become. If the injunction will result in more eligible voters voting, you better have a great reason for pausing it
A clip from The New York Times reads: "But only the entities that officially paid the tariffs are eligible to recover that money. That means that the fuller universe of people affected by Mr. Trump’s policies — including millions of Americans who paid higher prices for the products they bought — are not able to apply for direct relief. The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds, something that few have publicly committed to do. Some have started to band together in class-action lawsuits in the hopes of receiving a payout."
The average American family paid $1,700 in tariffs last year, according to the bipartisan Congressional Joint Economic Committee. Few will ever see any of that money back. The refunds will go to companies, if doled out at all. What a joke.
UPDATE: DOJ still going after this lawyer at 9th Circuit, seeking almost $6000 in legal fees from him over representation he performed pro bono.
No doubt the censorial administrators didn’t intend to nix Plato. But when you try to hide your obvious viewpoint discrimination & translate it into something resembling viewpoint neutral policies, you get this. They know they can’t just say “no icky stuff we disagree with.”
When you have a why, you can bear any how.
💔
We either figure out how to live near each other or we will all die here together.
Forever in awe of Rachel Goldberg-Polin.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCln...
Those missed FTs at the end! Keeping you on the edge of your seat.
I stan! Project 2029? 😉
I’m very excited to be collaborating on such an important project. Can’t wait to see this thing in print! @liberalcurrents.com
Nice comeback by the Hawks.
This goes back to why Chiles is such a mess. But there are limits on what the state bar can punish. A journalist reporting critically about an organ of the government falls outside of those limits.
I feel like that's still inconsistent with some shadow docket decisions from when Biden was President. IIRC, there were at least a couple cases where SCOTUS did not intervene when the merits were very one-sided in favor of the Biden admin.
Plenty of criticism on the right of the #SCOTUS leaker and the Times’s reporting, but has anyone actually responded to the argument that Roberts’s assessment of “irreparable harm” and his refusal to balance the equities is completely inconsistent with his subsequent behavior in all the Trump cases?
I'm excited to share that we've made a collection of historic Supreme Court Records and Briefs available via
@archive.org
I've written a blog post where I go into detail about the importance of this collection.
blog.archive.org/2026/04/20/u...
This is such a huge gift. What an incredible resource.
Yep. Plus, Rule 8.4(f) doesn't trump the First Amendment.
This is what I say each time I begin my Con Law class. But it's okay. SCOTUS doesn't know how it works either.
I feel this. With my academic freedom article forthcoming, I feel like I wake up at least once a month, open my email from Inside HigherEd, and think, "Oh no, what are Texas universities doing now?!?!?!"
"That's a fantastic question. I plan to address that issue in my next paper." 😉
To expand on this a little: one thing that playing fast and loose with the facts lets you do as a judge is lie about the legal principles you're using to decide cases
They're making you take exams as a final semester 3L? Rude.
I'm surprised they responded.
