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
1983 — which allows private suits for state and local deprivations of rights secured by federal law—to enforce federal statutes enacted under Congress’ spending clause power. Laws” means federal statutes, including spending clause enactments that “unambiguously” create individual rights. Background.
The relevant statute , regulating disability benefits, provides that “the United States will pay [compensation] to any veteran” who is “disabled” as a result of (1) “personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty,” or (2) “aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty.”
837 (1984), courts must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency is charged with administering, even if they are inclined to rule another way. The Court’s decision in Chevron is one of the most frequently cited administrativelaw decisions. In Loper Bright Enterprises v.
After plaintiff appealed the decision, an AdministrativeLaw Judge determined that plaintiff was in fact entitled to benefits from defendant. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The ALJ’s order was entered in May 2019. Code Ann. §
The FCC had a large staff of AdministrativeLaw Judges who heard these cases, and they were usually quite busy. The process by which the ALJ conducts the hearing is set out in the statute and by FCC rules. Usually, the FCC will have its own attorneys playing a part in the case, conducting discovery (e.g.
It directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to contract with a nonprofit climate reporting organization that has “experience with climate-related financial risk disclosure by entities operating in California.” One target of this is the “greenwashing” that underlies many companies’ net zero pledges. [20]
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. FDIC , involving separation of powers and administrativelaw claims. The court also noted probable jurisdiction for a one-time relist of a mandatory appeal in a redistricting case, Alexander v.
Loyola University of Chicago Judge Jackson-Akiwumi / Seventh Circuit / July 25, 2022 Case Overview The case involves a group of students who filed a lawsuit against Loyola University, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
In its legislative findings, which remain in air quality statutes today , Congress justified air pollution regulation because “the growth of the amount and complexity of air pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development, and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare.”
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. Among them are Griffith 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