Michael Rosenberg, Loomis» attorney for his trial and appeal, argued that Compas — which is short for Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions — violated Loomis»
right to due process because the proprietary nature of the algorithm made it impossible to test its scientific validity and because the tool improperly considers gender in determining risk.
Not exact matches
They also argue that it threatens
due process rights because it may not get done by the federal deadline
to certify the vote, putting Wisconsin's electoral votes in jeopardy.
The provision therefore violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment
right to due process,
because it authorizes the Defense Department
to afford preferential treatment on the basis of race and does not meet a «strict scrutiny» standard, the appeals court decided.
I believe torture is wrong
because it violates international law, it is a human
rights abuse, it occurs without
due process resulting in the abuse of innocent people, and it sets a bad precedent / example
to the rest of the world.
This is
because, contrary
to being put on a watch list, they were convicted of a crime in an open court, after being afforded their various
rights around
due process of law.
Defendant Venditto had also hoped
to suppress some statements he made
to prosecutors
because, his defense alleged, the government improperly interviewed him and violated his
due process rights.
People who have lost the
right to vote,
due to a legal
process (either automatically as in some places, or
because part of the sentence was the loss of such a
right).
Kellner claims
because he was granted «
due process», by a Silver appointed judge, in an appeal of the first sanctions, and was granted the
right to see the evidence against him, the new charges and sanctions were made out of spite.
NYPD officials have said they're in a holding pattern while a possible federal indictment looms
because Pantaleo has
due -
process rights that restrict their ability
to question him.
In a March 2009 ruling, Judge James Munley wrote that while such an injunction is an «extraordinary remedy,» he would grant it
because «the parents in this case have a Fourteenth Amendment substantive
due process right «
to be free from state interference with family relations.»»
«On the problem with extending the tenure beyond two years... It's important that while we want teachers
to at some point have
due process rights in their career, that that judgment be made relatively soon; and that a floundering teacher who is grossly ineffective is not allowed
to continue for many years
because a year is a long time in the life of a student... having the two - year mark — which means you're making a decision usually within 19 months of the starting point of that teacher — has the interest of... encouraging districts
to make that decision in a reasonable time frame so that students aren't exposed
to struggling teachers for long than they might need
to be....
But
because teachers have
rights to due process, the educator wipe - out could be lengthy and take several months, AJC reports.
This law, then, becomes a constitutional problem
because it inhibits the non-enumerated but generally accepted
right to interstate travel under the Fifth Amendment's
Due Process Clause.
This is
because we have measurements that show the direct solar forcing is much smaller than the forcing
due to CO2 and thus it is necessary
to invoke a feedback
process specific
to solar only in order
to be able
to have any hope of having it dominate (and, even then, you have trouble getting the time - dependence
right over the last half century or so).
These proceedings are critically important
to property owners, developers, municipalities, and other community stakeholders
because they decide significant matters of property
rights, fairness and
due process, economic development, neighborhood compatibility, and public policy.
We turn next
to Appellants» assertion that the PROTECT Act's provision authorizing fast - track programs violates their
due process and equal protection
rights because similarly situated individuals in districts with fast - track programs could receive lower sentences.
Because the government has a legitimate interest in conserving prosecutorial and judicial resources in districts with large numbers of immigration cases, and fast - track programs are rationally related
to that interest, we conclude that the PROTECT Act's authorization of these programs, and their implementation in some but not all districts, does not violate Appellants» equal protection and
due process rights.
It concluded that the challenging party's
due process rights were violated
because the appellate judge did not recuse himself after the opposing side contributed $ 3 million
to his campaign while the case was pending.
Can the law through
due process come
to conclusion that a person be denied his constitutional
rights because he signed a contract that was illegal / unconstitutional in the first place?
Yet, the Husband in the Nassau County matter claimed that
because he wanted
to stay married, the statute violated his constitutional
rights to due process.
The Challenger argued that the Law violated his
due process rights because the State's registration
process «stigmatized» him since his inclusion within the registry immediately lead
to the conclusion that he was a dangerous sex offender and the Law did not give him any means
to challenge this classification.