Court Decisions Court Rules Utah 
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 10, 2024
6 rioters win early release, even before key Supreme Court ruling (Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post) Utah, trade groups ask Supreme Court to review oil rail line (Niina H. Here’s the Wednesday morning read: Some Jan.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
DECEMBER 11, 2020
The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted BLM’s and federal officials’ motion for voluntary remand without vacatur of claims that they failed to comply with NEPA in connection with 27 oil and gas leasing decisions across Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Montana between September 2016 and March 2019.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
OCTOBER 7, 2019
Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Claims Regarding Environmental Review for Oil Pipeline. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied petitions for further review of an appellate court decision finding all but one aspect of the environmental review for the Enbridge Line 3 oil pipeline project to be adequate. filed Sept.
JURIST
MAY 27, 2024
It was in response to the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. In that case, the court ruled that the government could take someone’s property for private economic development under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Claus, saying it qualified as a “public use.” New London.
SCOTUSBlog
JULY 24, 2024
Here’s the Wednesday morning read: Trump allies crush misinformation research despite Supreme Court loss (Cat Zakrzewski & Naomi Nix, The Washington Post) Bears, Fish, and Wolves’ New Predator: the Supreme Court?
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
OCTOBER 25, 2024
The federal court ruled resoundingly in favor of SIFMA, finding for plaintiffs on all counts. Further, the court noted that ERISA’s savings clause, essentially an escape hatch from preemption, would not allow for the rules’ survival because the laws “pose an obstacle” to ERISA’s comprehensive scheme. The appeal of Utah v.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
JUNE 8, 2021
Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that she believed the Court’s interpretation would allow defendants to “sidestep” the general bar on appellate review by “shoehorning” a civil rights or federal officer removal argument into their case for removal. The court also declined to sever and transfer the land-based portion of the lawsuit.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
77 
Let's personalize your content