This collection is inspired by the transdisciplinary possibilities posed by the connections between space and justice. Drawing on a variety of theoretical influences that include Henri Lefebvre, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Doreen Massey, Gillian Rose, Walter Benjamin, Elias Canetti, Antonio Negri and Yan Thomas, the contributors to this book conduct a series of jurisprudential, aesthetic and political inquiries into ‘just’ modes of occupying space, and the ways in which space comes under the signs of law and justice. Bringing together leading critical legal scholars with theorists and practitioners from other disciplines within the humanities, Spaces of Justice investigates unexplored associations between law and architectural theory, the visual arts, geography and cultural studies. The book contributes to the ongoing destabilisation of the boundaries between law and the broader humanities and will be of considerable interest to scholars and students with an interest in the normative dimensions of law’s ‘spatial turn’.

This book comprehensively explores and critiques how the current U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, has reshaped First Amendment law. It argues that this Court has consistently used First Amendment law to promote a limited view of freedom, while bolstering social and political stability. This book examines every decision about expressive freedom the Supreme Court handed down between Chief Justice Roberts' ascent in September 2005 and Justice Scalia's death in February 2016. During Chief Justice Roberts' tenure, the Court has issued more than forty decisions that interpret the First Amendment's speech protections. These decisions comprise one of the most important parts of this Court's record and legacy while inspiring sharply divergent judgments. The author explores many of the key recurring debates in First Amendment law as well as providing much needed attention on the special problems of the government preserve cases and the high stakes of the electoral process cases.

"In its first edition, Setting Limits Fairly stimulated considerable work on setting priorities in health care, both here and abroad. The second edition adds new material to the book, including a new chapter on the international response to accountability for reasonableness and two new chapters on applications of the approach in developing countries and in human rights approaches to health."--BOOK JACKET.

Lord Justice Jackson was required: to review the rules and principles governing the costs of civil litigation and to make recommendations in order to promote access to justice at proportionate cost; to review case management procedures; to have regard to research into costs and funding; to consult widely; to compare our costs regime with those of other jurisdictions; and to prepare a report setting out recommendations with supporting evidence by 31st December 2009. A preliminary report was issued in May 2009 and is also published alongside this final report (ISBN 9780117064034). Major recommendations cover: conditional fee agreements, of which "no win, no fee" agreements are the most common species, and which have been the major contributor to disproportionate costs; success fees and ATE (after-the-event) insurance premiums should cease to be recoverable from unsuccessful opponents in civil litigation; success fees should come out of the damages awarded to the client; awards of general damages should be increased by 10 per cent, and the maximum amount of damages that lawyers may deduct for success fees be capped at 25 per cent of damages; lawyers should not be permitted to pay referral fees in respect of personal injury cases; qualified one way costs shifting, taking away the need for ATE insurance; fixed costs in fast track litigation; establishment of a Costs Council. Other sections of the report deal with: other funding issues; personal injuries litigation; some specific types of litigation; and controlling the costs - including pre-action protocols, greater use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), disclosure, case and costs management by the judiciary.

Relied on by students, professors, and practitioners, Erwin Chemerinsky’s popular treatise clearly states the law and identifies the underlying policy issues in each area of constitutional law. Thorough coverage of the topic makes it appropriate for both beginning and advanced courses. New to the 7th Edition: Discussion of many new cases, including: Allen v. Cooper; American Legion v. American Humanist Association.; Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta; California v. Texas; Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak; Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez; Carr v. Saul; Carson v. Makin; Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid; Central Virginia Community College v. Katz; City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising; Collins v. Yellen; Davis v. Bandemer; Dept. of Commerce v. New York; Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue; Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt; Fulton v. City of Philadelphia; Gundy v. U.S.; June Medical Services LLC v. Russo; Kennedy v. Bremerton School District; Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania; Lamone v. Benisek; Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.; Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck; Merrill v. Milligan; New York Rifle and Pistol Association. v. Bruen; New York State Rifle and Pistol Association., Inc. v. City of New York, NY; Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru; PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey; Ramos v. Louisiana; Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee; Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo; Rucho v. Common Cause; Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Siegel v. Fitzgerald; Shurtleff v. City of Boston; South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom; Tandon v. Newsom; Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association. v. Thomas; Timbs v. Indiana; Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety; TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez; Trump v. Hawaii; Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP; Trump v. Vance; U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc.; U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez; U.S. v. Washington; Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski; Veith v. Jubelirer; West Virginia v. EPA; and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson Benefits for instructors and students: Renowned authorship Examination of black-letter law and all the myriad issues of constitutional interpretation with unrivaled thoroughness and lucidity Excellent historical overview of the creation and ratification of constitution, examining the existential question of why we have a constitution

A First Amendment Profile of the Supreme Court focuses on the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court and determines their frames for assessing First Amendment cases. In each of the chapters, a justice will be profiled in terms of his or her claims during the nomination hearings and the positions they have taken in significant Supreme Court decisions. The object of these chapters is to provide a rhetorical frame that each of these justices would find appealing regarding First Amendment case law.

The search for justice, beyond the basic political understanding, is profoundly theological and ethical. In this work, Dr. Basilius M. Kasera analyses the meaning of justice in post-apartheid Namibia from a biblical perspective. He argues that notions of justice carry no meaning unless they emanate from the community of the affected. Every group of people, by virtue of being God’s image-bearers, are able to assess their own context and provide befitting solutions. However this kind of agency has not been afforded to the post-apartheid Namibian society, which continues to operate on borrowed models of justice. While extrapolating on Allan Boesak’s beneficial theological concepts of justice, Dr. Kasera encourages theologians and Christians at large to participate in the creation of meaningful, effective, and transformative policies, programmes, practices, systems, and justice institutions.

This book attempts to answer the question how health care can be incorporated into a comprehensive theory of justice, while realising an acceptable balance between efficiency, justice and care. It seems to be that we can have any two but not all three. Essentially, the central question addressed by this book is the following: how best to square the proverbial welfare circle.