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 case stems from a broader federal antitrust action against Google, which South Carolina had sought to join under the doctrine of parens patriae , wherein a government can intervene to protect the interests of its population. In that case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Google.
Supreme Court upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Controlled Applications, which will require TikTok to shut down in the United States unless its Chinese parent company divests its interest. The Courtsdecision in TikTok Inc. government officials have taken steps to address national security concerns surrounding TikTok.
Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether Mexican government may continue its lawsuit against U.S. Facts of the Case The government of Mexico filed suit against seven U.S. Accordingly, it reversed the district court’s holding that the PLCAA bars Mexico’s common law claims. gun manufacturers.
Share Tired of reading jargon-filled law review articles with hundreds of footnotes? The perfect antidote is Painting ConstitutionalLaw: Xavier Cortada’s Images of Constitutional Rights , edited by Professors M.C. In a watershed decision in Gideon v. Mirow and Howard Wasserman.
Supreme Court held that alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). The Courtsdecision was unanimous. Supreme CourtsDecision The Supreme Court disagreed.
Supreme Court held that Yonas Fikre’s lawsuit against the FBI is not moot. Accordingly, his suit alleging that the government placed him on the No Fly List unlawfully may proceed in the lower courts. citizen and Sudanese emigree, brought suit alleging that the government placed him on the No Fly List unlawfully.
Supreme Court has concluded its oral arguments for the 2022-2023 Term. The Court’s final week included four cases, with issues ranging from bankruptcy to RICO to government takings. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v.
The statute imposes a maximum $10,000 penalty for nonwillful violations of the law. As explained by the Supreme Court, FBAR reports are designed to help the government trace funds that may be used for illicit purposes and identify unreported income that may be subject to taxation.
Supreme Court held that two States and five individual social-media users who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment, lacked Article III standing to bring their suits. _ (2024), the U.S.
The Government claims that the easement includes public access, which petitioners dispute. In 2018, petitioners sued the Government under the Quiet Title Act, which allows challenges to the United States’ rights in real property. Petitioners countered that §2409a(g)’s time limit is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule.
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that while a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.”
1681n and 1681oauthorize suits for damages against “any person” who violates the FCRA, and §1681a expressly defines “person” to include “any” government agency. Supreme Court’sDecision The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. “[W]e government. government. It held that the USDA could be sued because 15 U.
The Government also later provided McIntosh with a pretrial bill of particulars that included as property subject to forfeiture $75,000 in cash and a BMW that McIntosh purchased just five days after one of the robberies. After a jury convicted McIntosh, the District Court imposed a forfeiture of $75,000 and the BMW at the sentencing hearing.
In reaching its decision, the Court explained that a State law that merely restricts land use in a way “reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial government purpose” is not a taking unless it saps too much of the property’s value or frustrates the owner’s investment-backed expectations.
Supreme Court held that the government can’t keep the profits of properties sold to satisfy tax debts. In answering in the affirmative, the Court cited both history and precedent, noting that the principle that a government may not take more from a taxpayer than she owes dates back to the Magna Carta. In Tyler v.
Constitution. Like many local governments, Grants Pass has public-camping laws that restrict encampments on public property. The post Supreme Court Upholds Homeless Ordinance Imposing Criminal Penalties appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
Supreme Court held that uncashed MoneyGram checks are governed by the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Check Act (FDA) and should be returned to the state where they were issued. The post Delaware Loses Bid to Keep Uncashed MoneyGram Checks appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
to stand between the accused and a potentially arbitrary or abusive Government that is in command of the criminal sanction.’” The post SCOTUS Rules Double Jeopardy Bans Retrial of Defendant Found Non-Guilty by Reason of Insanity appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
The Court’sdecision gives plaintiffs significantly more time to bring APA claims against the federal government. As the Supreme Court explained in its opinion, debit card transactions require merchants to pay an “interchange fee” to the bank that issued the card.
In this case, several trade associations representing payday lenders and credit-access businesses challenged regulations issued by the Bureau pertaining to high-interest consumer loans on both statutory and constitutional grounds. Supreme Court Upholds CFPB Funding Scheme appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
Supreme Court ruled that public officials may be held liable for their social media activity in certain circumstances. In reaching its decision, the appeals court held that a public official engages in state action only when the official performs a legally mandated “duty of his office” or invokes the “authority of his office.”
In the past 20 years, the court has announced substantive constitutionallaw, pleading requirements, and timeliness rules that make it harder to win such arguments. It particularly disfavors Eighth Amendment litigation attacking familiar lethal injection protocols as “cruel and unusual” punishment.
Supreme Court held that where parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts — a court must decide which contract governs. operator of a cryptocurrency exchange platform, and its users.
The Government argued that Pulsifer could not satisfy that requirement because he had two prior three-point offenses totaling six criminal- history points. In the Government’s view, each of those prior offenses disqualified him under Subparagraph B and the six total points disqualified him under Subparagraph A.
In Bruen , the Court explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In light of Bruen , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
However, if the court determines that “the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue” at hand, the court must defer to the agency’s interpretation if it “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
Arellano appealed, arguing that his award’s effective date should be governed by an exception in §5110(b)(1), which makes “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation. The post SCOTUS Issues First Opinion of the Term appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
The Tenth Circuit upheld the district courtdecision in favor of the IRS and its authority to conduct the audit. Thomas noted that in 2005 a fractured divided court ruled Gonzales v. Thomas noted that the federal government continues to claim the authority while simultaneously saying that it will not enforce it.
The District Court granted Cruz and his Committee summary judgment on their constitutional claim, holding that the loan-repayment limitation burdens political speech without sufficient justification, and dismissed as moot their challenges to the regulation. Supreme CourtDecision. It has not done so here.”.
In the District Court, Warner Chappell accepted that the discovery rule governed the timeliness of Nealy’s claims. Notably, that issue is before the Court in a pending petition for certiorari in Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Martinelli.
It therefore would be strange to interpret §666, as the Government suggests, to mean the same thing now that it meant back in 1984, before the 1986 amendment,” he wrote. “We The post Supreme Court Rules Bribery Statute Doesn’t Criminalize Gratuities for Past Acts appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
As the Court explained: We agree with Gonzalez that the Fifth Circuit took an overly cramped view of Nieves. That court thought Gonzalez had to provide very specific comparator evidence—that is, examples of identifiable people who “mishandled a government petition” in the same way Gonzalez did but were not arrested.
Supreme Court held that the False Claims Act’s scienter element — which asks whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a “false” claim to the government — refers to a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs — not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed. The Court’sdecision was unanimous.
Section 1028A(a)(1) applies when a defendant, “during and in relation to any [predicate offense, such as healthcare fraud], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” The Court today rightly rejects that unserious position.”
In his opinion, he further argued that the Court should have agreed to consider the case, but allowed the lower courtdecision to remain in place until it rendered a decision. But it is quite another thing for a federal court to swoop in and redo a state’s election laws in the period close to an election.”.
The Supreme Court went on to find that its decision in Pennsylvania Fire Insurance governed the case. This case poses a very old question indeed — one this Court resolved more than a century ago in Pennsylvania Fire.” . … Not every case,” Justice Gorsuch noted, “poses a new question.
In a 2-1 panel decision, the court also found that the was overly broad. In so ruling, the appellate court reversed a January 2019 district courtdecision.
The district court a accepted that VIP carried its burden that this was an expressive work, which seems unassailable. Accordingly, ComicMix governs the outcome here. However, the Supreme Court has now accepted the case for a reason. “A parody functions just like a mash-up. 302 at 20.) .”
The wife in the case had been fourteen when the case started in the first instance courts; she is now 22, and her marriage certainly no longer a child marriage. And as a matter of fact, the ConstitutionalCourtdecision itself is already almost two months old; it was rendered on February 1.
Ask any constitutionallaw student to name the most iconic Supreme Courtdecision, and they’ll probably answer Marbury v. Those two landmark rulings stand as the most celebrated decisions the court has ever issued. This is the final round of the Big Dance, and it’s time to vote. Board of Education.
Muñoz’s position would usher in a new strain of constitutionallaw, for the Constitution does not ordinarily prevent the government from taking actions that “indirectly or incidentally” burden a citizen’s legal rights,” Justice Barrett wrote.
The Court first addressed the threshold issue of standing, concluding that at least Missouri had the right to challenge the student loan forgiveness program. In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper, limited role in our Nation’s governance,” Justice Kagan wrote.
In their opinion, Congress specifically prohibited courts from issuing injunctions related to certain immigration laws. The Constitution affords federal courts considerable power, but it does not establish ‘government by lawsuit,’” Gorsuch wrote.
Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage.
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