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
He suggested that the tribe could enter into a contract with the federal government for funding to administer prosecutions through its own prosecutor. Kimberly responded that there are two easy fixes, both of which, he asserted, respect tribal sovereignty.
There are several statutes that form the basis of our antitrust laws. They also required any financial company entering (or renewing) contracts with state entities to affirm they do not, and will not, boycott those companies. And what are the permissible boundaries of that behavior? What is a Boycott, according to antitrust law?
To promote tribal self-governance, Congress allows tribes to contract with the Indian Health Service to oversee these programs themselves. The program also provides for the agency to pay the tribe “contract support costs” that the tribe uses to run the program, because it lacks the existing bureaucracy to operate the program.
Circuit upheld the regulation, holding that “the disputed rule is consistent with the best interpretation of ‘machine gun’ under the governing statutes.” In Cargill , the en banc U.S. Coinbase asserts that this situation arises frequently, and it argues that the circuits are divided: While the U.S. relisted after the Oct.
Oklahoma last term, the court confronted the complex past of Oklahoma’s Native nations, Chehalis turns on the unique legal history of Alaskan Natives. Today, the regional ANCs in particular are among the most important companies in Alaska, with billions in revenue from energy development, tourism and government contracting.
The Oklahoma charter school board that approved the Catholic schools application tells the justices that a state supreme court ruling invalidating its contract with the school violates the Constitution and harms lower-income families. Isidore is a private actor working under a contract with the state.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.) Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan 17 conferences.) Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v.
Yes, the statute really does have a full cite to the opinion in it. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan, saying that the insurer was not a “party in interest” because the bankruptcy plan left its rights under its insurance contracts where it found them – in the parlance of the case law, it was “insurance neutral.”. 26 and Oct.
The Republican-led “anti-ESG” (environmental, social, governance) movement over the last two years has largely been a legislative effort, comprised primarily of state-level bills that attempt to halt the consideration of climate risk and other commonplace factors in investment decisions connected with government funds, contracts, and pensions.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed , holding that because a federal agency now has the final say over how the private horse-racing authority implements the federal statute, the amended law did not impermissibly delegate authority to a private entity. In a one-paragraph order, the justices granted the authoritys request. Franklin v.
EPA (2025), Barrett dissented in favor of the EPAs authority to impose receiving water limitations under the Clean Water Act, arguing that such limitations were useful when EPA issues general permits to broad categories of dischargers, and pushing back against the majoritys restrictive interpretation of the statute. Luxshare, Ltd.
Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. United States 24-417 Issue : Whether the United States enjoys greater rights than a private party to withdraw from a contract based solely on its determination that it no longer wishes to be bound by that contract. Oklahoma v. Federal Trade Commission 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