The U.S. Supreme Court continues to issue decisions impacting New Jersey municipalities. In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U. S. ____ (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the city of Boston violated the First Amendment when it rejected an application to fly a Christian flag on one of
On April 13, 2022, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to law enforcement agencies authorizing off-duty cannabis use under the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act. Given the sudden and extreme departure from the norm, the memorandum was met with a broad variety of reactions. Some expressed support,
In State v. Michael A. Konecny (A-21-20/084880) (Decided April 5, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held a previous uncounseled conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) can’t be used to enhance a sentencing scheme for subsequent DWI convictions. The court further holds that a conviction vacated through post-conviction relief
In Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (A-73-20/083980) (Decided May 10, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted parole to Sundiata Acoli, a former member of the Black Liberation Army who was convicted in the 1973 shooting death of a New Jersey state trooper, Werner Foerster. The court
How to teach students about sexual health has become a controversial topic in recent years, and New Jersey is no exception. As the New Jersey Student Learning Standards for Comprehensive Health and Physical Education (NJSLS-CHPE) are debated in the media, it is essential that local school districts understand how the standards
In State v. O.D.A.-C. (A-78-20/085608) (Decided May 2, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that because a detective repeatedly contradicted and minimized the significance of the Miranda warnings, the State could not shoulder its heavy burden of proving the defendant’s waiver was voluntary. Facts of State v. O.D.A.-C.
In Graphnet, Inc. v. Retarus, Inc. (A-71-20/085529) (Decided February 11, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that a new trial on damages was required after the jury received confusing instructions on the purpose of nominal damages by stating in the same instructions that nominal damages compensate a plaintiff
In City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the City of Austin’s sign ordinance, which regulates “off-premises” signs more strictly than “on-premises” signs, was facially content-neutral. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the lower court to apply intermediate rather than
