SCOTUSBlog

NOVEMBER 7, 2022

A state administrative law judge found one late-2016 transfer to have violated FNHRA and ordered Talevski returned to VCR; the family chose to move him to a different facility. Talevski’s wife and legal guardian brought a Section 1983 action on his behalf against VCR, HHC, and other entities, alleging violations of his FNHRA rights.

Stare Decisis 86

Stare Decisis Statute Court Contract 86

SCOTUSBlog

MAY 11, 2022

Both cases arise in the context of administrative proceedings brought by independent enforcement agencies against regulated parties — Axon by the Federal Trade Commission, and Cochran by the Securities and Exchange Commission. relisted after the April 29 conference). Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochran , 21-1239.

Stare Decisis 77

Stare Decisis Administrative Law Statute Government 77

SCOTUSBlog

MAY 20, 2022

Cochran , the justices will decide whether federal district courts have the power to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the commission’s administrative law proceedings. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. The case is sufficiently similar to Axon Enterprise, Inc.

Stare Decisis 119

Stare Decisis Court Lawyer Lawyers 119

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 18, 2022

First, he cites legislative history demonstrating the general pro-claimant design of the veterans’ benefits laws as well as Congress’ more specific intent that the “clear and unmistakable error” remedy reach the kind of legal error at issue in the case.

Statute 107

Statute Stare Decisis Government Contract 107

SCOTUSBlog

FEBRUARY 4, 2022

Idealogues have sought to reshape the court’s jurisprudence in their own ideological vision, whether liberal or conservative, often at the expense of stare decisis and typically voiced most vigorously in dissenting opinions. While on leave from Harvard, he served as a senior legal adviser in the Senate. The pragmatist.

Stare Decisis 85

Stare Decisis Administrative Law Government Court 85

SCOTUSBlog

JANUARY 16, 2024

The stakes in the case are high: The challengers argue that the current deferential standard is unconstitutional, while the Biden administration contends that overturning the existing doctrine would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system.” The doctrine at the center of the case is known as the Chevron doctrine.

Stare Decisis 145

Stare Decisis Court Statute Government 145