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
United States that in order to constitute aggravated identity theft, the use of a person’s identity must be at the “crux” of what makes the conduct criminal, reversing a lower courtdecision. The government also applied a sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Monday denied the federal government’s motion to stay a district courtdecision striking down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) eviction moratorium. In response to COVID-19, the CDC ordered a nationwide moratorium on residential evictions last fall.
United States the Court held that in order to convict someone under the statute, the government must prove both that a defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to a category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms. Decisions in both cases should come this summer. Two years ago in Rehaif v.
Justice Elena Kagans succinct opinion for a unanimous court squarely rejected the lower courts approach, ruling that profits only of the named defendant can be awarded. The problem, though, Kagan explained, is that this is not a tenable take on the decisions below, which never considered that portion of the statute.
In 1982, Thompson tells the justices, the Supreme Court declined to interpret the same law to cover bad checks, rejecting the governments argument that writing a bad check is a false statement because it falsely implies that there is enough money in the account to cover the amount of the check.
government deported him to Mexico. The government reinstated his prior removal order. While the Supreme Court has never set a bright-line test on when a detainee is entitled to a bond hearing, the U.S. The Supreme Court will now review those decisions. After one such entry, the U.S. In Zadvydas v.
Supreme Court held that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not accrue for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2401(a) ’s default six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U.
As enacted in 1984, the statute at issue in the case, 18 U.S.C. Justice Kavanaugh cited that six reasons that, taken together, led the Court to conclude that §666 is a bribery statute and not a gratuities statute—”text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice.”
Indeed, Roberts reflected, when the whole point of the governments inquiry in deciding whether to grant or deny marketing authorization is whether the products will be sold to the public, the retailers might be the most likely people to challenge the denial of authorization. The government gets sued in a lot of places, she noted.
Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a federal aggravated identity theft statute. The Government maintained that §1028A(a)(1) was automatically satisfied because Dubin’s fraudulent Medicaid billing included the patient’s Medicaid reimbursement number—a “means of identification.” In Durbin v.
Kirschenbaum — In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule to significantly decrease the rate the government will reimburse 340B hospitals in 2018 for outpatient prescription drugs from average sales price (“ASP”) plus 6% to ASP minus 22.5%. The statute sets this “average price” as ASP plus 6%.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived the case of a man on death-row in Texas who is seeking DNA testing to provide evidence that he asserts will clear him. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that Rodney Reed had filed his challenge to the Texas law governing DNA testing too late.
CACI was appealing a lower courtdecision that favored the Iraqi men in 2019. law named the Alien Tort Statute that allows non-U.S. CACI had claimed it was protected under derivative sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government contractors from liability under certain circumstances.
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.
In 1993, William Neilly was sentenced in Michigan state court to life without the possibility of parole for a homicide he committed as a juvenile. Because of intervening Supreme Courtdecisions prohibiting the imposition of no-parole life sentences for juvenile offenders, he was resentenced to a lesser sentence. 28 conference.)
Oklahoma last term, the court confronted the complex past of Oklahoma’s Native nations, Chehalis turns on the unique legal history of Alaskan Natives. Though Alaska became part of the United States in 1867, the federal government only fitfully devoted attention to the status of the new territory’s Indigenous peoples.
Electrification is a critical component of building decarbonization, and local governments are taking a leading role in this policy space. While a handful of local prohibitions fall within the Ninth Circuit decision’s scope, many more do not. Options that remain available to local governments are addressed in the next section.
Some background about the general compromise that governs that problem sets the stage for this dispute. That decision distinguishes between types of gambling that a state prohibits outright and types of gambling that a state tolerates subject to regulation. The success of that facility led to proliferation of the business model.
As we reported, on November 5, 2020, the District Court held that the relator could not plausibly plead the requisite scienter because Forest’s interpretation of the ambiguous statute was objectively reasonable and CMS did not warn Forest away from that interpretation through authoritative guidance. Burr , 551 U.S.
In that case, the Medicaid statute obligates the state to “seek reimbursement” from the person who committed the tort, and it requires (in 42 U.S.C. Prior Supreme Courtdecisions have made clear that the state is entitled only to the portion of the settlement attributable to medical expenses.
Bruen is a happy ending to a cautionary tale about what happens when constitutional rights are left to government discretion. The Bill of Rights — including the Second Amendment — was designed to ensure that certain rights were placed beyond the reach of the federal government. Again, according to the government, they were not.
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.
After a few slow weeks on the relist front, the Supreme Court came roaring back this week with four newly relisted petitions that, if granted, will likely be added to the March 2023 argument calendar. The government again seeks review of the 9th Circuit’s holding. Two years ago, in United States v. Hansen appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Government officials – tribal, federal, and state – have established initiatives to address the disturbingly disproportionate rates of violent crimes perpetrated against indigenous women. How is it possible that the sentence rendered by the Court of Indian Offenses was dramatically less severe than the sentence rendered in federal court?
The 2017 Supreme Courtdecision in TC Heartland gave renewed teeth to the venue statutegoverning litigation. Although the notice letter is a critical aspect of the Hatch-Waxman process, the Federal Circuit found that the letter was not an “act of infringement” as required by the venue statute.
The filing of “protective” claims for refund as a hedge against the draconian provisions that govern the federal taxation of cannabis, and particularly for marijuana, is one of those things properly placed at the top of the no-brainer list.
Carole Johnson (consolidated cases), the Court found that the conditions set by Novartis and United Therapeutics on covered entities did not violate the 340B statute, although more restrictive conditions could violate the law. District Court and won, prompting a government appeal to the D.C.
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.
The answer the court gave was a stern rebuke, vitiating the plenary control that lower-courtdecisions had granted the state for more than a quarter of a century. The most controversial provisions of that statute, addressed in Ysleta , are the provisions that govern the tribes’ subjection to Texas gambling regulations.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. Sineneng-Smith , the justices reversed a circuit-courtdecision that struck down a federal law criminalizing the act of “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” noncitizens to enter or remain in the United States for financial gain.
The Furman decision was both a remarkable achievement for the NAACP lawyers and a disappointment for those seeking to abolish capital punishment in this country. It was remarkable because, for the first time in American history, the court insisted that if the U.S. Austin Sarat.
Last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’sdecision to dismiss a False Claims Act (FCA) ( 21 U.S.C In addition, Grifols’s eligibility for government contracts is conditioned on FDA approval of Gamunex and FDA approval is conditioned on compliance with GMPs.
Second, he argued that he no longer qualifies as a career offender, because one of his state convictions has been vacated and others no longer count as “crimes of violence” after a 2015 Supreme Courtdecision. In the abstract, the federal government largely agrees with Concepcion’s fallback position.
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.
Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Returning Relists.
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.
The first question in the Court’s analysis was whether the claim that the SEC brought is a “suit at common law,” i.e., if the case is legal in nature. That the claim rested on a federal statute and required the SEC to establish facts that do not match any cause of action known to the common law in 1791 was not dispositive.
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.
Let’s explore this decision and its ramifications in a little more depth. As we have written before , an Internet service that allows users to post content to that service is exempt from any liability for that content under two statutes.
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.
Cortada is a longtime Floridian who received his law degree from the University of Miami and is now a professor at the University of Miami Department of Art and Art History; his work combines his legal training with his artistic vision of how each Supreme Courtdecision shaped the nation. In a watershed decision in Gideon v.
1983 , the iconic civil rights statute permitting plaintiffs (including prisoners) to sue state officers for infringing constitutional rights. Georgia, by contrast, argues that Nance must bring the Eighth Amendment claim under the federal habeas statutes.
Supreme Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a claim-processing rule rather than a bright-line rule that constrains a court’s jurisdiction. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the Court. The Government claims that the easement includes public access, which petitioners dispute.
It is possible that these interpretations of the new Act will change with new legislation or courtdecisions, so never assume what you read one day will be interpreted the same way the next day. According to a blog by David Warfield and David Farrell, Thompson Coburn, LLP, there are nine amendments to the Bankruptcy Code in the CAA.
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