Remove Cause of Action Remove Government Remove Legal Remove Statute
article thumbnail

No cause of action against employers for take-home COVID

At the Lectern

In other words, there’s no legal exposure for employee family member virus exposure. The court also holds that California’s worker’s compensation statutes don’t bar the action.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules that SEC and Potentially Other Agencies Cannot Impose Civil Penalties in Administrative Proceedings

FDA Law Blog

The first question in the Court’s analysis was whether the claim that the SEC brought is a “suit at common law,” i.e., if the case is legal in nature. That the claim rested on a federal statute and required the SEC to establish facts that do not match any cause of action known to the common law in 1791 was not dispositive.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies

SCOTUSBlog

Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”

Court 145
article thumbnail

When is a Government Official’s Social Media a State Action?

Patently O

.” The case is important because social media is increasingly used by government organizations to push-out information; while those same avenues provide an important public mechanism for voicing opposition. Using “government staff to make a post” will very likely be deemed an official act. ” 42 U.S.C.

article thumbnail

Court rules against plaintiff seeking emotional distress damages for discrimination

SCOTUSBlog

Jane Cummings, who is deaf and legally blind, sued Premier Rehab (a Texas rehabilitation facility that receives federal funding) for discriminating based on disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

article thumbnail

Court endorses private Section 1983 enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

Gorgi Talevski’s family brought a Section 1983 action against Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation, a government nursing facility owned by Health and Hospital Corp. Jackson explained that two well-established principles prompted the court to reject HHC’s invitation to reimagine the statute and precedent.

Statute 101
article thumbnail

Court explores continued private enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

This case presents whether a resident deprived of those rights can sue a publicly owned and operated nursing home under Section 1983, which provides a cause of action against government actors who deprive anyone of rights secured by the “laws” of the United States, meaning other federal statutes, including spending clause enactments.

Court 94