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
Although they are the highest-profile cases on the November argument calendar, the justices will also hear oral argument in important cases involving (among other things) the power of federal district courts and the constitutionality of a federal law designed to protect against the separation of Native American families. Arizona (Nov.
In both cases, the targets of agency proceedings want to challenge the legitimacy of those proceedings right away in federal court, rather than having to await the outcomes of long-running administrative processes before getting their day in court.
On our Broadcast Law Blog, we wrote last week about the FCC’s current role in regulating the Internet ( Blog Post ). But, because a party pledged to file for it in the next FM auction filing window, the FCC did not delete a vacant allotment at Snowflake, Arizona. Press Release )( Section by Section summary )( Text of Legislation ).
The FCC has already issued such an extension three times since the initial compliance deadline of May 26, 2015, as the NAB contends that there still is no workable technology that can perform the functions required by the rule (see our Broadcast Law Blog article here from the last extension 5 years ago).
The same law is at the center of Environmental Protection Agency v. The Supreme Court recently invalidated a removal restriction for an agency headed by a single official in Seila Law LLC v. The Bruen test, the state court added, was “fuzzy,” “backward-looking,” and “unravels durable law.” Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.
See our recent Broadcast Law Blog article for more information. The Bureau continues to substitute UHF channels for VHF channels in local markets to improve reception of over-the-air television channels, the most recent example being its substitution of channel 27 for channel 11 at Yuma, Arizona.
* Supreme Court rejects Trump's attempt to halt New York state law sentencing on "president-elect immunity." There's no rule requiring justices to note their dissent from this one, but Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh wanted to make the record clear that they would do what Trump asks even if there's zero basis in law.
Accusations of her being a DEI judge and a rattled law professor have flooded social media, with figures like Mike Davis and Laura Loomer leading the charge. These cases share common themes, in resolving disputes over regulatory and administrativelaw, economic regulation, state-federal authority conflicts, and taxation.
The Attorneys General of Arizona and Montana filed an amended a joint lawsuit Monday alleging that the Biden administration has violated immigration and administrativelaw. As pointed out in the joint Arizona and Montana complaint, this will result in the release of some detainees due to capacity limits.
For a further discussion of Sohn’s withdrawal and its implications for broadcast regulation, see the article on our Broadcast Law Blog, here. If you have C-Band earth stations, review this notice for more details.
Texas presents the latest stage in the Biden administration’s attempt to unwind the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy. After Texas and Missouri challenged that decision, a federal district court vacated the secretary’s termination, in part on the administrative-law ground that the decision was insufficiently explained.
In a series of recent decisions, federal courts across the United States have addressed a range of significant legal issues, from civil rights and constitutional law to administrative authority and criminal justice. Fontes , which involved election law and constitutional questions, and Foote v. Other Areas: 15 points.
Under federal law, immigration officials may not admit someone to the United States if they deem that person likely to become a public charge, or dependent on government benefits. In 2018, the Trump administration issued a rule that expanded the qualifying benefits to include Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance.
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to set immigration policy. Texas and Louisiana are challenging a federal policy that prioritizes certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and deportation, arguing that it violates federal law.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out an effort by Arizona and 12 other states with Republican attorneys general to defend a contentious Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration refused to do so. The case, Arizona v.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the Biden administration’s request to put Tipton’s ruling on hold while it appeals. In a separate case, Arizona, Montana, and Ohio also challenged the policy in a federal district court in Ohio. The district court barred the Biden administration from relying on the memorandum, but the U.S.
Innovation Law Lab , a challenge to the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which allows the Department of Homeland Security to return immigrants seeking asylum to Mexico while they wait for an asylum hearing in U.S. On March 2, the justices will hear oral argument in a major voting-rights dispute from Arizona.
Share The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in a case involving whether a group of states can defend a contentious Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration refused to do so. After nearly 90 minutes of debate in Arizona v.
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