Court Decisions Lawyers Statute 
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 27, 2025
Osseo Area Schools is the latest in a long series of Supreme Court cases involving the statutory rights Congress has granted to schoolchildren with disabilities. The discrimination statutes bar any discrimination by a public entity (such as a school district) by reason of [any] disability. So what have the lower courts done?
JURIST
JUNE 8, 2023
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 court decision. The opinion provides analogies including “a lawyer who rounds up her hours from 2.9
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
JURIST
APRIL 24, 2021
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.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 6, 2023
Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a federal aggravated identity theft statute. Because the crux of Durbin’s overbilling was inflating the value of services actually provided, and the patient’s means of identification was an ancillary part of the Medicaid billing process, the statute was not violated. In Durbin v.
SCOTUSBlog
JANUARY 9, 2022
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 Court decisions have made clear that the state is entitled only to the portion of the settlement attributable to medical expenses.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 1, 2023
The “challenge” in understanding the statute, Gorsuch pointed out, is that “there is no clear referent in § 11(a) telling us what ‘such security’ means.” For one thing, the statute imposes liability for false statements or misleading omissions in ‘ the registration statement.’” – rather than simply “a” or “any” registration statement.
Broadcast Law Blog
JANUARY 22, 2010
The Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Because the station cannot censor the candidate ad (except in the exceptionally rare situation where the airing of the ad might violate a Federal felony statute), the broadcaster has no liability for the contents of the ad.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
114 
Let's personalize your content