Jessica Smith

Oct 11, 2024 | wng.org | Jessica Smith

Last week’s vice presidential debate offered Americans a refreshing dose of policy substance and civility. But despite the moderators’ mantra of “a number of subjects to discuss,” the debate largely failed to offer a clear picture of the candidates’—or their running mates’—beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity and the federal policies likely to cascade from those worldviews. In 2023, Gov.

May 28, 2024 | law.com | Susan Combs |Jessica Smith

Taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) frequently disagree over the meaning of tax statutes and regulations. In God’s Storehouse Topeka Church v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8478, 98 F.4th 990 (10th Cir. 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit relied on the “plain meaning” approach to statutory interpretation.

May 28, 2024 | hollandhart.com | Susan Combs |Jessica Smith

Law.com Law.com Taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) frequently disagree over the meaning of tax statutes and regulations. In God’s Storehouse Topeka Church v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8478, 98 F.4th 990 (10th Cir. 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit relied on the “plain meaning” approach to statutory interpretation.

Mar 26, 2024 | lexblog.com | Dori Pagé Antonetti |Peter Maher |Jessica Smith

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court considered whether James Freed, a city manager who maintained a “mixed use” Facebook account on which he posted information about his personal life and his job, violated the First Amendment and was subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) when he deleted comments with which he disagreed and eventually blocked a member of the public from commenting on his Facebook posts at all.

Mar 25, 2024 | lexblog.com | Dori Pagé Antonetti |Peter Maher |Jessica Smith

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court considered whether James Freed, a city manager who maintained a “mixed use” Facebook account on which he posted information about his personal life and his job, violated the First Amendment and was subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) when he deleted comments with which he disagreed and eventually blocked a member of the public from commenting on his Facebook posts at all.