As the U.S. Supreme Court term draws to a close, one set of eagerly watched cases could have potential implications for the upcoming presidential election in the United States. The Court is poised to decide two cases that involve so-called “faithless” electors. Electors are the people whose votes select the President of the United States, and the electors in these cases refused to cast their votes for the presidential candidate who won the popular vote in their home states.
On dreamers, Trump, the US Supreme Court and the difference between a Rechtsstaat and an authoritarian regime.
Über Dreamer, Trump, den US Supreme Court und den Unterschied zwischen einem Rechtsstaat und einem autoritärem Regime.
The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton Countyon 15 June 2020 with major implications for 8,1 million LGBTQ+ workers (1 million of which transgender individuals), that now enjoy protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This contribution delves into the Court’s decision and its consequences, and also discusses its past key LGBTQ+ related rulings that have brought much-needed equality for the LGBTQ+ community in the last 20 years.
The clash between Trump and Twitter epitomises a new dynamic that raises important questions and dilemmas for the liberal order: the dilemma of liberal censorship.
On civil rights, civil war and why one should beware of false associations looking at Minneapolis.
Droht in den USA der Bürgerkrieg? Während die Gewalt in den Großstädten eskaliert, ließ sich der Präsident mit erhobener Bibel vor einer ausgebrannten Kirche fotografieren. Den Weg durch die demonstrierende Menschenmenge hat ihm die Polizei zuvor mit Tränengas freigeschossen. Die düsteren Assoziationen, die diese Bilder bei RALF MICHAELS hervorriefen, bespricht der Direktor des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht im heutigen Podcast mit Max Steinbeis.
The Bundesverfassungsgericht's PSPP decision will have immense consequences. I have no reason to doubt the alarm raised by so many informed and respected commentators. But here’s one small thing that has been lost in the debate so far. The Court’s decision to go its own way on a question of European law might be seen as evidence of the influence of the common law tradition in the European legal system. That’s no bad thing, and it’s probably unavoidable in any case.
Donald Trump is among the world’s most famous and prolific Twitter brawlers, picking fights — while the sitting President of the United States — with, among others, Greta Thunberg, supermodel Chrissy Teigen, and his former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Now he finds himself in a fight with Twitter itself, and he is bringing the power of his high office to bear. After Twitter began flagging tweets from the President under a new fact-checking policy, Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that threatens actions against platforms engaged in “Online Censorship.” The legal effects of the President’s action are likely to be limited. The broader political effects are harder to gauge.
Normally, outside states of public health emergency, many countries employ some type of vaccination coercion scheme to encourage uptake. The range of possible measures, including monetary incentives, social exclusion, fines, and criminal penalties, fall on a spectrum from voluntary to strictly mandatory. Given the power and efficacy of vaccinations, many nations have adopted varying approaches to compelling vaccination against emergent public health threats. Specifically, this article examines the legal and historical orientation of mandatory vaccination in the US and Germany.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters