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
Both cases are now before the Supreme Court. Because of the wrinkles of the court’s jurisdictional statutes, Garcia comes from the three-judge district court directly to the Supreme Court as an appeal over which the court has mandatory jurisdiction. Palmer would ordinarily go through the U.S. . 12 and Jan.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky filed a complaint arguing that the law is unconstitutionally vague. The US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed and issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law. A three-judge panel of the appellate court reversed the lower courtdecision in a 2-1 split.
In their petition, the legislators argue that courts are split as to whether an official seeking to intervene in a case under a state law must prove that the state’s interest is not adequately represented. Federal law curtails the extent to which a federal court can consider arguments that a prisoner has not presented in state court.
Coverage of federal fraud statutes Porat v. The trial court said it was troubled by the “disproportionate number of African-Americans who were struck,” but it was reluctant to grant Broadnax’s challenge to the strikes under Batson v. Kentucky because “it implies some sort of nefarious intent on the part of prosecutors.”
The statute tasks the Department of Education with “issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability” to “effectuate” Title IX’s antidiscrimination mandate. District Courts in Louisiana and Kentucky agreed with the plaintiffs and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the rule in the plaintiff States.
Louisiana did not initially file a response to Granier’s petition, but – when instructed to do so by the Supreme Court – it countered that Granier was not entitled to relief because no Supreme Courtdecision had clearly accepted claims of implied bias. Kentucky ex rel. rescheduled before the Mar.
State governments are already responding to the Dobbs decision with new regulations banning abortion or working to reinforce protections for people seeking abortions in their states across state lines. HB314 reinforced Alabama statute banning abortion that was never appealed after it was made unenforceable under Roe. South Dakota.
Two principal federal antitrust statutes govern agreements among competitors: the Sherman Act of 1890, which prohibits monopolization and unlawful trade restraints, and the Clayton Act of 1914, which identifies additional prohibited conduct, including with respect to interlocking directorates, and mergers and acquisitions.
The justices did not act on two sets of high-profile petitions that they considered last week: a group of challenges to bans imposed by Illinois and several municipalities in that state on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as challenges to bans on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee and Kentucky.
A group of states brought suit in a federal district court in Kentucky, challenging the constitutionality of the HISA and its funding mechanism. 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
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