/explore
|
You are here 
|
ukhumanrightsblog.com | ||
| | | | |
ukconstitutionallaw.org
In For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers the UK Supreme Court rejected the contention that possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate changes an individual's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, maintaining equality of status for all those protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment and ensuring that biological women are protected... |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.trevorloudon.com
By: Cliff Kincaid With the Supreme Court ruling 7-2 against the Trump Administration on deportation of foreign terrorists and gang members on American soil, the so-called "Supreme Court," with two ... |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.translegalproject.org
Download this article here:IntroductionThis articlecritically discusses the judgmentin For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. I have tried where possible for itbe accessible to non-lawyers and to lawyers of all specialisms. The articleis not intended to be comprehensive in its critique of the judgment but focuseson three points:1. The implications of the Court declining to considerunder section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998whether its interpretation would breach t |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.internetgovernance.org
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling upholding the TikTok ban. The Justices clearly did not understand the full implications of this decision, and admitted as much in the opening paragraphs of the decision: "...we are conscious that the cases before us involve new technologies with transformative capabilities. This challenging new context [...] |
|
| | | |||
