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
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from the SouthCarolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (SCDPR) challenging a lower court ruling that found the state had waived sovereign immunity by participating in a federal antitrust lawsuit against Google.
The SouthCarolina Supreme Court issued two decisions late in 2021 that may impact employers' and co-workers' potential liability in litigation arising from an employee's discharge.
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.
In total, at least 25 cases have been filed in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, SouthCarolina, and Vermont. The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel company defendants, ruling that appellate courts could review all grounds of the remand order.
FCC , which rejected the requirement that broadcast licensees independently check two federal databases to verify whether an airtime lessee is a “foreign governmental entity” (see our Broadcast Law Blog article on the Court’sdecision here ).
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday was divided over whether Planned Parenthood has a legal right under federal civil rights laws to challenge the order by SouthCarolinas governor barring abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, from participating in Medicaid.
The courts ruling, which is expected by late June or early July, could have significant implications not only for Louisiana but also for other states attempting to balance compliance with the Voting Rights Act and redistricting. The disputes path to the Supreme Court on Monday was a circuitous one. Aguinaga insisted that it was.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. The New Jersey federal court concluded that private and public interests weighed in favor of transfer. and non-U.S. Shrestha v.
Callais ) (March 24) A challenge to a lower courtsdecision to strike down a map that created a second majority-Black congressional district in the state. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This article was originally published at Howe on the Court. Callais (consolidated with Robinson v. Oklahoma v.
(Ian Ward, Politico) Voting Rights Claims Plunge in Wake of Supreme CourtDecision (Diana Dombrowski, Alex Ebert, Kimberly Robinson, Jon Meltzer, K. 13 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that, at first glance, appears to involve only a technical interpretation of the federal Medicaid Act. Edwards and Planned Parenthood went to federal court in SouthCarolina. The Supreme Court, it says, has made clear that this is a stringent test.
Under the Supreme Courtdecision Allen v. The rights groups say that the North Carolina legislature did not include these criteria when redistricting the state. The action against North Carolina is not the only ongoing voting rights litigation in the country.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. She also was persuaded that Congress had ratified the lower appellate courtdecisions holding that there was a narrower scope of review.
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