There may never have been an idea whose time has so obviously come than mail-in voting in the COVID-19 era. However, a major risk confronting the nation as it scrambles at the last minute to move from primarily in-person to primarily mail-in is the risk of leaving logistical and legal details open to political manipulation in highly unpredictable fashion.
The United States Supreme Court is expected to soon deliver its judgment in the first transgender rights case before it. In the absence of federal laws protecting transgender persons from discrimination, the case revolves around the question whether the prohibition of discrimination ‘because of … sex’ transgender discrimination. The US Supreme Court appears to turn this into a question of political deliberation, bathroom policies and dress codes. The ECJ, on the other hand, instead of getting lost in policy discussions, has already in 1996 recognized the protection of transgender persons against discrimination based on the core constitutional principle of equality. The ECJ’s approach does in fact have a foothold under US case law and the US Supreme Court could seize the opportunity to bring transgender persons closer to enjoying the same rights as the general population.
Heute geht es um Wahlen, genauer um Wahlen in den USA, wo sich im November herausstellen wird, ob Donald Trump eine zweite Amtszeit bekommt. Wahlen in der Coronakrise, das ist auch anderenorts ein außerordentlich haariges Thema, und in Amerika ganz besonders: Im Bundesstaat Wisconsin haben die Demokraten kürzlich ihre Vorwahlen abgehalten. In den Streit darüber, wie diese Wahlen ablaufen sollen, hat sich der Supreme Court eingeschaltet, und zwar auf eine Weise, die bei vielen den ohnehin schon vorhandenen Zweifel daran, dass das oberste Gericht politisch unparteiisch unterwegs ist, noch mal massiv verstärkt hat. Was es mit diesen Zweifeln auf sich hat und was das für die Präsidentschaftswahl bedeuten könnte, darüber spricht Max Steinbeis mit DAVID DRIESEN, Professor an der Syracuse University im Bundesstaat New York.
United States lawyers may wonder whether President Trump has captured its Supreme Court. One day before a presidential primary and local election in Wisconsin, the Court intervened in an extraordinary way to add a new voting restriction. The decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee provides further evidence that the Court has abandoned its high court role in favor of unusual partisan interventions to effectuate results found congenial by its Republican majority. Furthermore, a Court usually sensitive to national security concerns reached its judgment about the Wisconsin election without taking the threat the coronavirus poses to democratic processes seriously.
Carl Schmitt is now regularly referenced in discussions of President Trump’s extraordinary and probably unprecedented claims to unchecked executive power. The President’s knee-jerk hostility to the administrative state, however, has helped spare Americans the worst consequences of his Schmittian legal instincts. Yet that hostility has come with its own high price.
We will at some point surface from the current public health crisis. How and when and what the new normal will look like, no one knows. But we do know that autocrats around the world are using the epidemic as a pretext to gather even more power unto themselves. In this light, the fact that a Harvard Law Professor has published an article at this time with this kind of viral load in the pages of a respectable journal is perhaps more scary than the virus itself.
Am 13. März erklärte der US-Präsidenten Donald Trump nach langem Zögern den Nationalen Notstand („national emergency“). Verwirrung stiftete am Wochenende nach der Erklärung des Nationalen Notstands eine den Stafford Act betreffende Falschmeldung. Dass sie sich so rasant in den sozialen Medien verbreiten konnte, dürfte zum einen daran liegen, dass der Stafford Act nur wenig bekannt ist und zum anderen eine Vielzahl an unklaren Regelungen enthält. Deutschland und Europa können aus diesem Intermezzo zumindest lernen, wie man den Katastrophenschutz in föderal organisierten Systemen nicht ausgestalten sollte.
Das Impeachment-Verfahren gegen Donald Trump, warum es scheitern musste und welche Schäden es hinterlässt: ein Interview mit Mattias Kumm.
On Thuringia, the US, Poland, Europe and some extremely odd practices in academic publishing.
Über Thüringen, USA, Polen, Europa und die sonderbaren Praktiken im Wissenschafts-Verlagsbusiness.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters