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
The US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declined Tuesday to rehear with the full Eighth Circuit panel of judges a prior appeals courtdecision curtailing private organizations’ ability to sue under section two of the Voting Rights Act for alleged racial gerrymandering in redistricting decisions.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. This securities class action relies on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory, which was validated in the 1988 Supreme Courtdecision, Basic Inc.
“Federal Court Moves to Drastically Weaken Voting Rights Act; The ruling, which is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights groups from suing under a key provision of the landmark law”: Nick Corasaniti of The New York Times has this report.
The Court of Appeals of Arkansas, applying Arkansaslaw, has affirmed a trial court'sdecision that an insurer had no duty to defend where the insured received a demand letter constituting a claim.
We have been discussing the state laws requiring contractors and employees to swear that they do not support the the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (“BDS”) movement against Israel. I have long maintained that the law is unconstitutional as a limitation of free speech and associational rights. 50-5-85(b). ” O.C.G.A.
Carole Johnson (consolidated cases), the Court found that the conditions set by Novartis and United Therapeutics on covered entities did not violate the 340B statute, although more restrictive conditions could violate the law. This decision may encourage more state-level efforts to adopt similar laws.
Our nonprofit law firm, the Institute for Justice , represents her. Besides Minnesota, the area includes Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas. Supreme Court to overturn a decision from the 8th U.S. The public interest law firm also has offices in Minneapolis.
But he did not claim to have been in “pursuit,” and according to Arkansas State Police policy, pursuit requires that “lighting equipment and siren shall be in operation throughout the pursuit.” Lori Braun sued in district court on behalf of Cassandra Braun, who was killed in the accident.
Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed. Next up is Kelly v.
State governments are already responding to the Dobbs decision with new regulations banning abortion or working to reinforce protections for people seeking abortions in their states across state lines. Below is an updating guide to states with now-active legislation or trigger laws banning or criminalizing abortion. Washington Gov.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. In addition, the court declined to exercise its discretion to abstain or to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Conservation Law Foundation v.
But in response to legal challenges, Congress amended the law in 2022 to give the FTC the power to make changes to the authoritys rules. A group of states brought suit in a federal district court in Kentucky, challenging the constitutionality of the HISA and its funding mechanism. The en banc 4th Circuit upheld the law.
Share This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Brnovich v. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy is a professor of law at Stetson University College of Law, a fellow at the Brennan Center, and the author of the book Political Brands. These two restrictions in Arizona law were shown in the U.S.
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition , where she sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the Courts liberal bloc to reject former President Donald Trumps attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from the MAGA movement and right-wing commentators. Texas, Becerra 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