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
This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether words displayed on hats worn at a protest by legal observers – attorneys who document the treatment of demonstrators’ civil rights – can entitle them to sue police who suppressed the rally. Louis, Missouri. Ratzloff v.
The challengers in the other case are a coalition of ten states led by Missouri. We say “almost” because the one (and only) time the full Court heard oral argument on an emergency stay application was way back in December 1970 in the classic administrative-law case of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v.
Louis, Missouri , 22-193 Issue : Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination as to all “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” or whether its reach is limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees. New Relists Muldrow v.
Share The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in a challenge to a Biden administration policy that prioritizes certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and deportation. District Judge Drew Tipton agreed with the states that the policy violates federal law and vacated it nationwide.
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. In June 2021, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security issued a decision terminating the policy.
The court found that the Commission adequately explained its rationale for rejecting the dollar figure adopted by the administrativelaw judge. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Biden Administration Asked Missouri Federal Court to Dismiss States’ Challenge to Actions on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. Missouri 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