Construction Court Decisions Statute 
SCOTUSBlog
NOVEMBER 29, 2021
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.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
APRIL 18, 2023
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 30, 2024
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.
Patently O
FEBRUARY 24, 2022
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.
Constitutional Law Reporter
APRIL 4, 2023
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. . 5321(a)(5)(B)(ii)], it knew exactly how to do so.
Constitutional Law Reporter
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023
Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 7-2, holding that because §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.
Patently O
SEPTEMBER 21, 2022
. § 315(e)’s IPR estoppel provision applies only to claims addressed in the final written decision, as consistent with the holdings in Shaw , and Intuitive Surgical , and whether that interpretation remains correct after SAS Institute, Inc. But, lets look at the statute. But, lets look at the statute. Iancu , 138 S. 1348 (2018).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
100 
Let's personalize your content