Remove Construction Remove Court Decisions Remove Statute
article thumbnail

In far cry from usual textualism, court rejects veteran’s attempt to reopen a benefits denial based on legal error

SCOTUSBlog

Share On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a VA benefits decision that was based on an agency regulation in effect at the time the decision was rendered does not constitute “clear and unmistakable error” even if the agency regulation is later deemed to conflict with the text of the relevant benefits statute.

Statute 117
article thumbnail

Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula

SCOTUSBlog

Natural Resources Defense Council , determines when a federal court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. First, under step one, if the court determines Congress’ intent is clear and unambiguous in the statute, the court will interpret the statute according to its terms, without deferring to the agency.

Statute 104
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Holds Berkeley’s Gas Ban Preempted by U.S. Energy Policy & Conservation Act

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The court overturned a District Court ruling to invalidate a Berkeley, California, prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly-constructed buildings. Berkeley’s so-called “natural gas ban” was the first local ordinance in the country to effectively require all-electric construction of new buildings.

article thumbnail

Divided Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron in Landmark Decision

Constitutional Law Reporter

By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently O

Qualcomm , a case focusing on appellate standing following an IPR final written decision favoring the patentee. The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. Rather, an appellant must show concrete injury caused by the PTAB decision and redressability of that injury.

Laws 95
article thumbnail

Allegations of racial bias in a death penalty trial

SCOTUSBlog

The court will hold the other case raising that question, Ham v. Breckon , pending the outcome in Jones. This week we have only one new relist: Thomas v.

article thumbnail

Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question

SCOTUSBlog

They further claim that subsequent statutes, federal agencies and appeals court decisions have all already recognized the corporations as entities eligible for federal contracting under the ISDA. They further argue that Alaskan Natives’ health care needs have been, and will continue to be, met by regional tribal nonprofits.