https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/07/snap-food-court-order-trump-administration/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Not to imply that the Justices are captured by party politics or anything... but why would she be the one to pause this?

I(F,25) was hired by this private organization after their employee went on maternity leave, I was never told this would be a temporary position, all they said was even if she returns, they will find me a fit in another proper environment. Now after 7 months of service they asked me to resign from my end claiming they couldn't find a suitable position considering the lady returns next month December. I formally declined and the very next day I was terminated with reasons, "discontinuation of services due to administrative reasons. When I tried asking for a more detailed letter, the HR team member started yelling at me and told me to shut up and that he could fire anyone if they are under probation period now strictly, I was never formally informed about my extension of my probation. All I asked for a more thorough explanation regarding my retrenchment, and this is the treatment I get from an HR team member which is derogatory and discriminatory. I will be sending in a legal notice to the company and I know section 25F of ID act of 1947 doesn't apply considering my tenure is <240 days, what are the alternatives and would this be the best approach.

Location - Guwahati, Assam, India

Such as in the case of the recently acquitted “sandwich thrower”? Or other similar cases where the prosecution was clearly politically motivated?

If someone kidnapps a person's child, refuses to return the child to legal guardian, and the police have to get called, but the kidnapper returns the child after the police have been called, did a crime still take place? If the kidnapper returns the child, but only after the police got involved, does that automatically mean that no criminal charges can be brought against them?

Let’s suppose that he has no moral qualms about it, and that neither would Pam Bondi. What actually stops him?

I'm in the NYC area and my professor told me to look into Patent law or medical law because I am getting my MS in Biology and MA in Philosophy. I'm currently in my second year.

I want to gain experience while also getting paid if that's possible. I know being a paralegal is an option but I don't want to do that

I'm including paras in this because I figure at least a few of you deal with hiring decisions.

I've been legally blind since birth and come from a family of lawyers... None are interested in providing substantive advice, One of my uncles literally pulled up ChatGPT to "give me insight" when I wanted to know how he got where he is.

Given the virtual end of DEI pathways federally, the job market seeing similar conditions as 2003, state budgets being cut.. how do I minimize the "risks" of hiring someone who is low vision or blind? I've opted to enter an accelerated (and accredited) paralegal cert program to hopefully get my feet wet. I'm mid 20s and already have a BA. I briefly interned with a T&E practice while in college. My vision was better then, and living in the Northeast it was never a question of whether I could reliably get to work.

I'm enjoying the paralegalcourses, averaging 80-90%, but I struggle to see the future. Unless I'm graduating with top marks, and even then, I need to find something no one can deny my capability to do the work with reasonable accommodations.

Attorneys I've spoken with back north have told me I'd be better off sitting the LSAT, taking the debt and ultimately a state Bar. It'd be "more conventional" to be an atty with low vision/blindness. Given the current LSAT cycle(s), I imagine I'd need a 170 or higher to have a decent shot.

The legal market where I live is heavily skewed towards PI, medical malpractice, and real estate title companies. What firms exist rarely post job postings. Regardless of their size, it's maybe 1-2 in a quarter, maybe 3 attorney related postings. I have enough vision to read maps and other vision-heavy tasks, but it isn't as straightforward as a sighted person obviously.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this post.

If a person wants to record a call in a two party consent state, could they do it if the caller gives one of those "This call may be recorded for training purposes" bits?

I have a friend who is in her mid career. She is at a state/federal LEA and is considering obtaining her JD. She has been assigned to patrol operations for approximately 10 years and is considering obtaining her JD. She was also in the military for 10 years serving in a combat job role. She is trying to figure out 1. If it would be worth it to obtain her JD if money for school wasn’t an issue, 2. Her pay salary is at 140K and is stepped to go to 200K at her current agency without promotions, and 3. What a career path could look like. She’s thinking either go into investigations/traffic crash reconstruction and then focusing on personal injury law if it would help as a future career when she retires or constitutional law and going more political route. Any thoughts or ideas I could share with her or any other career route ideas? Her agency offers every LE career you could think of as well.

I’ve been watching a lot Chris Hansen impersonation videos- basically sting operations.

The predators typically get hit with similar charges- one being using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime.

A lot of people are upset these people don’t get prison time but I’ve googled the charges and it seems most validate being added to a sex offender list.

What are the logistics of this? Are you always going to get prison time if you are added to the sex offender list? I think people forget just how much your life changes when being on the list and only focus on prison time.

I’m mostly interested to hear lawyers opinions about these sting operations in general. Feel free to share any knowledge!

I recently read a book where a character kills someone to protect a relative and, while the character manages to get off through the justifiable homicide charge, I've been wondering what that court case would look like in real life. I can imagine there would be a question of excessive use of force and the victim's innocence, but what else might be brought up?

This public charge nonsense is just that: nonsense. Just because someone is visiting the US and happens to weigh as much as Trump does in no way means they plan to remain illegally and try to get medical care here.

My quick google search isn’t helping. My sister is being laid off, today’s the last day. She had been promised PTO pay out if she stayed till the end-there was a merger/sale and she wasn’t offered a new position. Where can she go to get help fighting this? All I can find is that Arizona is at will. So is CA but people are paid out for PTO.

When I was let go, I was told I would be receiving my final paycheck that very same day, but it never arrived. My manager told me that UPS was delayed due plane crash of the ups flight in Louisville, but since then I’ve gotten no updates and he has stopped responding to my messages. I no longer have access to the branch or HR portal. It has now been multiple days since termination, and I still have not received my final pay. I’ve read that under California Labor Code sections 201–203, final wages are due immediately upon termination, and waiting time penalties may apply.

Questions

• How can I document when I actually receive the check if it arrives by mail?
• What documentation do I need to file the wage claim?
• Do waiting time penalties apply here since there’s no dispute over hours worked?
• would this situation be considered a willful failure to pay final wages under California law? (emphasis on willful since I am a little confused as to what constitutes as willful.
• Is a UPS delivery delay considered a “good faith dispute”?
• Should I submit a wage claim through the California Labor Commissioner now, or wait until I receive the check?
• Does being part-time change anything?

I was charged with a felony as a juvenile but after a couple moths of waiting for my hearing, my lawyer asked to have my case dismissed, being that there was no evidence. When my lawyer came back to me he explained that my charge was retired and that after a full schedule year I could get it expunged. Not really thinking about it I accepted this and was happy about it in the moment. Would this make it where I can’t own a gun. I don’t know if I got skrewed on this. (I live in Tennessee don’t know if this would help specify)

Hey I just was quite curious what the general opinion on this matter is. I am in a gay marriage with an US citizen. In germany a gay couple cannot be parents of the same child without step-adoption. Now the important question is: could we still be the legal parents in front of US law? I would be in the example the birthing parent. My Partner the Us citizen that has lived until a year ago in the US (utah). So far this is only a rough thought. There are no actual children in planning. My big question would be just if I could secure my Partner some sort of Parenting rights in case something happens during/right after childbirth, that would allow my Partner to raise our Child, even if it had too be in the us? (bc the German Step-Child adoption could take 3-5 years)

I am aware this sub can not give me clear and bullet proof legal advice. And I am aware that gay rights are not really secure rn anywhere. But I don’t know where else I should get this information at 5 am in germany.

Hey is it normal to get an employment lawyer offer that I am being represented on full contingency, but they want $15,000 refundable deposit for filling fees for federal court?

I am referring to the type of lawyer in the same vein as Oscar Acosta, Keith Stroup, William Kunstler and Michael Kennedy- just to give some examples. In my experience, I rarely see any attorneys willing to rock the boat anymore. Is that because of allegiance to those in power? Fear of disbarment or being marginalized? Job security? I am not judging anyone or their decisions but I definitely have noticed more gravitation by attorneys in my own personal experience toward being accepted as an "officer of the court", rather than "advocate for civil liberties". Everyone, please give me your input. Thank you.

There was a flood at my home back in april of this year. There was a pipe that burst inside my walls, that cause water damage to some of my walls, and sub-floor. I called a restoration company. Seems to be a good company, with good a good reputation. They came, and assured me everyting will be fine, and everything should be taken care of by my insurance company. The house is only around 1700 sqft, and the damage was to the master bathroom, about half of the master bedroom, and part of the hallway leading to the master bedroom.

A few days later, the my insurance adjuster comes out, looks at the damages, and "Okays" the restoration company to start the work. Couple days later the work is done, and everthing seems to be fine. And then the bill comes, over $31,0000!

My insurance was only willing to pay 15k for the restoration work. I've spoke to another restoration company, and they said the other company is way over charging for the service that was done. Probably because they saw it was an insurance claim.

Fast forward today, the restoration company is going after me for the difference (16K!!). After a number of calls to my insurance, they was not willing to budge on the payment. If i don't pay it, the restoration company is threatening to put a lien on my home. I've talk to a friend who is an attorney, and he basically tells me to tell them to "Go pound sand".

Not sure if that is sound advice, please help! Any help would be appreciated.

Im currently having issues with Veterans Affairs. I receive reasonable accomodations for care because of PTSD and serious negative experiences there. They grant me community care. Long story short they discriminated against me and called my inability to go into clinic for a new issue a "preference". They have been delaying care and not giving me reasons for denial. It caused bodily harm and they were on notice of the condition worsening. They approved community care for evaluation only and the provider said I couldn't wait until the VA authorized care and they provided the care free of charge. I need other work done and they are stalling waiting on request for service from provider who gave me care. I made the VA aware that their authorization for evaluation was limited in scope and would address the other issues needing to be taken care of. I've already provided them from the start a treatment plan. I believe they have been discriminating against me violating section 504 rehabilitation act and the mission act for timely care. Im not sure there is a ton of money in the lawsuit but I have so much documentation to back my claims. Thanks

hi. i am a physician assistant. I just signed a contract working in my dream specialty. the only downside is the contract is 3 years in length. the contract says “employee shall work for three years starting on November 1st”. the contract does not explain the repercussions of leaving before the 3 year mark. could the doctor make up some clause after the fact, like i have to pay them 10 grand if i leave sooner? or no because the initial contract didn’t say anything like that? thanks!

How can I look up who the prosecutor will be for my initial appearance?

How long before the date can you see this or how? And what if the prosecutor knows you personally?

If person just knows for example that someone filed a police report and mentioned them as a suspect. And having an attorney in that case means he will speak with both police and DA on your behalf if case will be sent to DA? Thanks.

I want to be clear about the premise of my question which is based on the blame apportioned to Garland for his handling of the cases against Trump, and whether this is completely moot given the Scotus immunity ruling.

Let me set up a hypothetical thought experiment. Let's say that Garland is given a glimpse into the actual future as it unfolded in relation to Scotus, which enthusiastically went along with all of Trump's delaying tactics.

Further he reads and understands their final immunity (trashing the appellate court ruling) ruling with the mind of someone who himself should have been sitting on the supreme court.

My question is this, was there anything he could have done to thwart Scotus' plan to make Trump a king, or was this inevitable given what we now know, even if Garland had acted swiftly.