This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Fitzgerald , unanimously agreeing on Monday that a statute that imposes higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states than in the other two states is so far from “uniform” that it transgresses the Constitution’s requirement that Congress provide “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”.
Legal Services Alabama, Inc. , Securities and Exchange Commission , 22-991 Issue : Whether, under special review statute 15 U.S.C. § That last case, United States v. CVSG: 5/18/2023 (relisted after the June 22 conference) Davis v. relisted after the June 22 conference) Diaz-Rodriguez v. relisted after the June 22 conference) Jarkesy v.
The court’s grant suggests the court may be poised to narrow the scope of standing for members of Congress to sue to enforce statutes. The court also denied review to the state of Alabama in Hamm v. FDIC , involving separation of powers and administrativelaw claims. The court denied review in three-time relist St.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content