Issue: Whether Texas’s use of the In re Briseno factors -- under which Texas assesses mental retardation using seven factors invented by the state court that rely heavily on the facts of the crime, have no basis in scientific literature, and conflict with the nationally accepted clinical definition of mental retardation relied on in Atkins v. Virginia -- is contrary to or an unreasonable application of Atkins v. Virginia, where these non-clinical criteria depart from the national consensus definition of mental retardation, are unrelated to a reliable determination of mental retardation, and permit the execution of mentally retarded offenders.
“I think always the humor was a means to an end. And the end is, to help folks who don’t live in this world understand why it matters.” Dahlia Lithwick covers the Supreme Court and writes about law more broadly for Slate.com. In this six-part interview, Ms. Lithwick discusses law school, practicing law, and how […]
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.