Thursday, December 11, 2008

Qualified Immunity with a Coke and a smile?

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has a recap of a fascinating oral argument at the Court yesterday.  Although it is primarily about procedural rules, the Con Law implication is about how those rules are being applied against one Mr. John Ashcroft.  Read the recap to hear the Justices' thoughts on Coca Cola, among other things.


| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Qualified Immunity with a Coke and a smile?:


Post a comment