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
Supreme Court held that a consumer may sue a federal agency under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o for failing to comply with the terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Respondent Reginald Kirtz secured a loan from a division of the United States Department of Agriculture and later sued the agency for money damages under the FCRA.
Supreme Court held that a deaf student seeking compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.
United States Railroad Retirement Board , 592 U. S. _ (2021), a divided U.S. Supreme Court held that a refusal by the U.S. The decision represents the first 5-to-4 split in a case argued during the Court’s 2020-21 term. The system is administered by the U. Legal Background. Railroad Retirement Board (Board).
The justices then ruled 7-2 that the remedy was one of the court’s own making — that the director of the U.S. The AIA also created a board of APJs — the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — empowered to issue final decisions on the validity of a challenged patent. On appeal, the U.S.
FERC has long taken the view, and the courts have confirmed, that it must consider “all factors bearing on the public interest” when making its determination. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—i.e., The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—i.e.,
By Livia Solaro, PhD candidate at Maastricht University, working on the transnational restitution of Nazi-looted art On 21 February 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Republic ofHungaryv.Simon , [1] a Holocaust restitution case with a lengthy procedural history. or MV) and its successor-in-interest Rail Cargo Hungaria Zrt.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Bidens decision in early January to block Japan-based Nippon Steels acquisition of U.S. Steel sparked a slew of unusual twists and turns more akin to a Hollywood political thriller than a typical corporate deal. Nippon announced it intended to buy U.S.
In Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies, Supreme Court Held that Appellate Review of Remand Order Extends to All Grounds for Removal. The Court declined to review the companies’ other grounds for removal, finding that the “wiser course” was to allow the Fourth Circuit to address them in the first instance.
Circuit Vacated Trump EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule. CircuitCourt of Appeals ruled that the U.S. The court therefore vacated and remanded the ACE Rule—which repealed the 2015 Clean Power Plan rule and in its place adopted a replacement rule that relied only on heat-rate improvements at individual plants.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. After going two conferences without any new relists, the Supreme Court ended the relist drought this week with a vengeance. A short explanation of relists is available here. Skrmetti , L. Skrmetti , and Jane Doe 1 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