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
In addition, always remember to keep in touch with your legal and regulatory advisors to make sure that you don’t overlook any regulatory deadlines that are specific to your station. Always review these dates with your legal and technical advisors, and note other dates not listed here that may be relevant to your operations.
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.
For a further discussion of Sohn’s withdrawal and its implications for broadcast regulation, see the article on our Broadcast Law Blog, here. For more details on this matter and the legal issues associated with it, see our Blog article here. signals must take.
But the 5th Circuit wrote that this case “may … attract the [Supreme] Court’s interest” because “[i]t tees up one of the fiercest (and oldest) fights in administrativelaw: the Humphrey’s Executor ‘exception to the general ‘rule’ that lets a president remove subordinates at will.” Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. ,
The justices directed the Biden administration and the states to address three specific questions. The first is whether the states have a right to bring their lawsuit at all – a concept known as legal standing. But Texas and Louisiana, U.S.
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. Area of Law: Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, Federal Authority: 25 points. Other Areas: 15 points.
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.
On March 2, the justices will hear oral argument in a major voting-rights dispute from Arizona. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. In the two cases, Brnovich v. Saul & Davis v. Saul (Mar. Disclosure : Goldstein & Russell, P.C.,
CNN noted that prominent legal figures like Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society have argued that the criticism is an overreaction to a procedural ruling, not a substantive one. These cases share common themes, in resolving disputes over regulatory and administrativelaw, economic regulation, state-federal authority conflicts, and taxation.
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. Arizona — confirming that the rule announced in Simmons v. However, on Dec. Issues : (1) Whether 8 U.S.C.
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