This article examines how cause lawyers and allied actors collectively resist restrictive EU migration policies during the Canary Islands crisis by strategically using legal and human rights tools to challenge exclusionary practices.
This study reveals how public interest lawyers strive to empower asylum seekers in Los Angeles despite facing significant challenges from a restrictive and politicized U.S. immigration system.
The article highlights how Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s challenge to military dominance in Pakistan sparked a nationwide lawyers’ movement that ultimately restored judicial independence and reshaped the country’s constitutional landscape.
The article explains how authoritarian regimes like Singapore exhibit legal hybridity by using law both to strengthen control and to limit their own power, blending elements of rule of law and rule by law.
Cause lawyering is a distinct form of legal practice shaped by the social and political context, particularly the dynamics between lawyers and their clients, which influences both its methods and the identities it produces.
In a historic move, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on four International Criminal Court (ICC) judges following the court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a previous investigation into alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. The sanctioned judges—Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (Peru), Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou …
The article explores the legal and ethical consequences for lawyers defending disputed election claims, proposing a new framework to balance First Amendment rights with professional responsibilities.
The passage highlights that the true role of lawyers is to prevent injustice and promote democracy, elevating law from a trade to a profession.
The article argues that current fears of democratic decline arise from unrealistic expectations rooted in Cold War-era progress narratives that presumed inevitable democratic consolidation.
The article examines how personal motives and structural factors shaped lawyers’ involvement in the “Stop the Steal” campaign, revealing broader patterns of polarization and democratic erosion within the legal profession.