My degree was removed as on option at my college I attended Our Lady of the Lake Universery in San Antonio, TX and was seeking an RN-BSN degree. I took a year off when I had a baby but when I returned, I found out that my degree was no longer offered. They told me they allowed everyone to finish but since I was technically not enrolled at the time, I would not be given this option. They advised me to utilize their sister school in Kansas through their online program. I was accepted and told the classes I took at OLLU would be accepted as part of my GPA but would not count toward my degree. So basically I had to start all over. I enrolled at UT Arlington and received the same response. I have over $13k in student loans from OLLU and nothing to show for it. Can I get these loans discharged?
Student loans that cover tuition and other educational expenses are for the charges that you incur by being enrolled. There may be some relationship between being enrolled and a career goal such as a degree or a job, but what you bought was the right to be in a class. You do in fact have something to show for the fees paid. Your issue is mainly with the university and not with the agency that lent you the money. The lender does not purport that you will receive a degree, so they have not been engaged in any wrong-doing. The prospects for suing the university to force them to let you complete the degree program are slightly better but still negligible. It is only technically possible to repudiate a student loan via bankruptcy, if you can prove that repaying the loan would impose an undue hardship on you (and you still have to go through the bankruptcy process).
Basically: what Flup said in his last paragraph (and so upvoted accordingly). Every one of the practitioners you named has an undergraduate degree from the UK, and an undergraduate degree from Canada. This, presumably, is because you're not permitted to practise law in most jurisdictions unless you have some kind of qualification in the law of that particular jurisdiction. The laws of each country, and moreover, the way in which cases are decided and in which each country's legal system works, varies so tremendously that you need to study the particulars for each jurisdiction before you can practice there. Regarding Canada: from this site: You must complete a Bachelor of Laws (L.L.B.) program or Juris Doctor (J.D.) program in order to qualify for bar membership in any Canadian province or territory. This generally takes three years to complete. In England and Wales, you can now take a law conversion course in place of an undergraduate law degree as a first stage towards being qualified. I suspect, however, looking at the dates of the judges you list, that the law conversion course wasn't an option at the time they got their qualifications, so their only option was a full undergraduate course. So the answer is: they each have two undergraduate qualifications, one from each jurisdiction, so that they could qualify to practise law in both jurisdictions.
Your understanding of the bill is correct. Legislation takes effect 90 days after sine die adjournment unless there is an emergency or enactment clause. If a relevant provision of the law is struck down as unconstitutional, any suit dependent on the provision would be dismissed. Residency is not relevant, what is relevant is being subject to Arkansas jurisdiction, meaning "being in Arkansas". A non-resident traveling to Arkansas could not have a forbidden procedure in Arkansas, and an Arkansas resident can have a procedure allowed elsewhere if they are elsewhere. A spouse would not be able to get an injunction if, for instance, the wife traveled to Washington state for the procedure, because Arkansas courts have no jurisdiction over Washington state. The law imposes a restriction on what physicians in Arkansas can do, and the woman receiving the abortion is not subject to liability.
Others have mentioned Title IX, the federal law that generally prohibits sex discrimination at federally funded educational institutions, 20 US 1681 et seq. However, there is specific permission for single-sex housing in 20 USC 1686: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this chapter, nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit any educational institution receiving funds under this Act, from maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes. As to your &quot;in this day and age&quot;, this particular section of the law has not been amended since it was first passed in 1972. If you think it should be, you can certainly write to your members of Congress and tell them so. However, you say you attend a &quot;Christian&quot; college. Religious schools get an even broader exemption from Title IX, as Michael Seifert also mentioned. 20 USC 1681 (a) (3): This section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization; So even if 20 USC 1686 were repealed, if your college determined that mixed-gender housing was &quot;inconsistent with its religious tenets&quot;, they would probably be allowed to continue having single-gender housing anyway.
Edith Windsor paid $363053 in taxes that she thought she did not owe. She later challenged the constitutionality of the law that prevented its refund. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) Abigail Fisher paid a $100 application fee to the University of Texas. She sued to get it back, challenging the constitutionality of the university's race-sensitive admissions process. Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) In Federal courts, a case can only become moot if "in no event will the status of [the plaintiff] now be affected by any view this Court might express on the merits of this controversy." DeFunis v. Odegaard 416 U.S. 312 (1974) That isn't a sufficient condition, but it's a necessary condition. In the case of a fee that has been paid, the court can always order the fee refunded if the law didn't (or can't) actually require that it be paid.
Wave Broadband is a private company; they can probably decide to not provide service to an address that is in arrears or collections. I'm sure there is a clause in their service contract that states they can do that, and there would be local or state laws to support that. Whatever public service commission governs the state may also allow that. It's possible that Wave is breaking the law by denying service to a whole address, but doubtful. You can check with the state level public service commission.
You're under 18, so you're viewed as a minor under the law, and as such, you can't agree to and sign legally binding contracts. The TOS for the applications are agreed to by your parents by default, because your parents are responsible for you and have no choice in parental guardian-type duties, such as education. Agreeing to the software TOSs may also be done for all student users by the school with their software site license(s) and under an agreement with your parents; ask for and read any written policies the school has. And, you don't have a say in data handling at your school; that will be another school policy for data and network security, and hopefully a policy exists. If a policy exists, it will set by the school board and it will respect a variety of local, state and federal laws. That said, you can approach the school board and outline your concerns and ask to take tests and assignments with pencil and paper. But they are not obligated to change policies for you or make accommodations, other than established accommodations required by law, such as under the ADA act. Once you're 18, you can fight the power. Until then, you're a minor.
Public schools are on a shorter legal leash than private schools are, because they must behave like proper governments do and respect the constitutional rights of their charges. (First Amendment rights are much broader in public schools than they are in private schools). Assuming that we're in a public school, a search of your phone is governed by a watered-down version of the 4th Amendment. They may search your phone if they have a reasonable suspicion that there is evidence of a violation of the law or a school rule, but this is passive with respect to you providing information -- if the phone is on, they can snoop around if they have a reasonable suspicion. The 5th Amendment would be relevant to passcodes: they cannot compel you to give up your passcode. If there was plainly-visible evidence of wrongful activity on the phone which they saw, and then you shut the phone down, then analogous to in re Boucher the courts could order you to reveal your password, under the "foregone conclusion" doctrine. However, it's the courts and not the schools who get to make that determination. One way the school could literally force you, bypassing the legal system, would be to physically threaten you, by beating you or threatening you with a gun or whip. Such physical coersion would be a felony, and it is almost inconceivable that they would do that. What they might maybe do is give you a non-physical ultimatum, of the type "decrypt the phone / reveal the password or we will... expel you / fine you / fail you in your English class / not let you go to any more football games / turn the phone over to the police". The question is, what would be legal versus illegal by way of consequences? I know of no constitutional right to attend football games anywhere, so they might well be able to get away with that deprivation. You might have a contractual right to attend games at a private school. With a private school, there is some contractual agreement between the school and you (least likely, assuming you're a minor) or your parents~guardians (most likely). That contract could imply certain rights, such as attending games, and might spell out a procedure for them to terminate that right. If they don't follow the process, they could be in breach of contract. Apart from contractual rights (which probably involve your parents, not you, but also would be considerable, for example the right to attend and be graded fairly in the English class), you have no protected rights. As you can see, the answer has a lot of "it depends" in it. Suppose your public school had a reasonable suspcion that you had engaged in a criminal activity, and might prove that by looking at the phone – which you shut down. They cannot use physical force against you, but they can try to persuade you, by offering you something that you want which they can legally take away – like attending a football game. If they try to deprive you of something that you have a right to, you can sue them to prevent that. However, they can also seek a court order to compel you to reveal the password, and it is certainly not illegal to inform you that if you don't unlock the phone, they will seek a court order. Whether or not the courts will grant the request is not obvious (incidentally, if the device is fingerprint-protected, you are hosed, since forcing a person to prove fingerprints is not against the 5th). If the school can be very specific about having seen criminal evidence, they have a leg to stand on, otherwise you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself (coughing up a password is a form of testifying against yourself).