Link Round-Up: June 30, 2017

 

'Link Round-Up’ gives you a glimpse into the articles that got the most airtime around the Loom Analytics water cooler this week. Published every Friday, article topics include access to justice, big data, legal technology, and what’s happening in the Canadian legal landscape.

“I have always found the Law Society of Upper Canada a bit of an anomaly, not so much because of its rumoured multimillion-dollar wine cellar but because of its name.

Where in Middle-earth is Upper Canada, anyway? Is it near the Shire or is it halfway between Gondor and Rivendell? Or is it closer to Mordor? Maybe it's near Tatooine? Or on Alderaan?”

 
june 30 image.png
  • In a decision that came just in time to catch the tail end of Pride Month, The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed an Arkansas decision which allowed same-sex married partners to be left off the birth certificates of their children when they were not the biological parent, deeming it unconstitutional. The decision came exactly two years after Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry across the country, leading some (me) to think the Supreme Court might have a bit of a flair for the dramatic. They certainly have an excellent sense of timing. Happy last day of Pride, everyone!
     
  • In considerably less exciting U.S. Supreme Court news, there's been a flurry of travel ban activity this past week, beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to consider challenges to the revised ban from six Muslim-majority countries, while also partially lifting the injunction preventing the travel ban from taking place. Under this new framework, the travel ban has taken effect but cannot be enforced against those with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the U.S.  Following the news that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the travel ban case, congressional Republicans have begun demanding that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse herself from ruling on the case, suggesting that her comments during Donald Trump's campaign calling him 'a faker' show that she cannot be impartial. Legal experts interviewed by the National Law Journal, however, doubt the assertion that Ginsburg is obligated to recuse herself, pointing out that the comments did not specifically address the travel ban.