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
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit accepted all three arguments and invalidated three aspects of the SEC’s operations. Within that framework, the public rights doctrine is the doctrine that allows administrative agencies, operating without a jury, to impose monetary penalties.
Share In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”
The US Supreme Court Monday heard oral arguments in Axon Enterprise, Inc. Axon filed proceedings in federal district court claiming that agency proceedings violate its due process rights. ” Stewart argued that the FTC Act review provisions authorizes courts of appeals to review final commission orders. .”
Talevski , to be argued Tuesday, returns the court to the question of when federal law is subject to private enforcement. The court will consider whether to overrule a line of precedent and to hold that private individuals cannot use 42 U.S.C. The district court dismissed the action, but the U.S. Arguments of HHC.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions (and one original action ) that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether New Jersey can withdraw from its Waterfront Commission Compact with New York concerning governance and law enforcement over the Port of New York and New Jersey. In New York v. New Jersey.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases this week. The two most closely watched involve whether the Court should overrule its landmark decision in Chevron v. The Court’s Chevron decision established a bedrock principle of administrativelaw. The cases before the Court, Relentless, Inc. 837 (1984).
Share The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a North Dakota truck stop can bring a challenge to a regulation issued 13 years ago by the Federal Reserve Board. A federal district court dismissed the case. A federal appeals court upheld the district court’s dismissal of the case, but the Supreme Court on Monday reversed.
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday in a case involving the deference that courts should give to federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws that they administer. Justice John Paul Stevens set out a two-part test for courts to review an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers.
Supreme Court declined to hold, in FTC v. 142 includes some new provisions (compared to previous iterations of the bill) to expressly provide for the Federal trade Commission (“FTC”) to obtain forfeiture and civil penalties in an administrative proceeding initiated by the Commission. Actavis, Inc., As we noted in our prior post, S.
District Court in the District of Columbia ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the EO. Trump asserted the following causes of action: Violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Trump , the court (Judge Randolph D. In both cases, the U.S. Trump and California v.
Louisiana Federal Court Blocked Biden Administration “Pause” on New Oil and Gas Leases. The federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the Biden administration from implementing a “Pause” on new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters.
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