On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court reached an affirmative opinion that discrimination based on gender identity is a violation of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Three cases comprised this decision, colloquially known as Bostock, however, I will focus on R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission as the other two cases deal with sexual orientation, not gender identity. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, Aimee Stephens, funeral director for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, was fired from her job after informing her employer of her intention to transition from man to woman and begin wearing more traditionally feminine clothes.

This article examines the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision that upholds a Kansas law barring one of the generally accepted applications of the so-called Insanity Defense. After a brief historical overview, it looks toward the potential impact mentally ill defendants may face, not only in the state of Kansas, but across the country

On March 4th, 2020, the initial oral arguments were presented for June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the newest case to potentially shatter the history of Roe v. Wade, a hallmark case that protects pregnant women’s right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. June Medical Services LLC v. Russo has proven to be very similar to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which in 2016 ruled that Texas cannot create restrictions that make access to safe abortion services an “undue burden” on women. The Louisiana law, Act 620, in this case essentially mirrored that of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Act 620, which was passed in 2014, makes it necessary for doctors performing abortions to have “admission privileges” at a designated hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. This law creates an “undue burden” on women, just as its twin in Texas did, as only one doctor in the state has admissions privilege at that level.

This article examines the positives and negatives of the use of smartwatch data as evidence in criminal trials. Across the globe, the prevalence of this practice has increased but there has yet to be a standard set by the Supreme Court. With judges left to their own devices, the evidence tends to be accepted despite lawyers and defendants arguing that it violates their Fifth Amendment rights. Companies are straightforward about their data sharing policies and the reliability of their devices, leaving it up to consumers to be aware of how their data may be subpoenaed. Although smartwatches are not medical equipment, they are accurate enough to assist investigators in piecing together a timeline.