Remove Court Decisions Remove Missouri Remove Statute
article thumbnail

D.C. Circuit Sides with Manufacturers in Latest 340B Contract Pharmacy Case

FDA Law Blog

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.

article thumbnail

In rejecting a prisoner’s post-conviction claim, court plants seeds for narrowing habeas relief

SCOTUSBlog

(The Supreme Court held in 2005 in Deck v. Missouri that such shackling practices violate a defendant’s due process rights.) The answer to that question turned on the relationship between a Supreme Court decision and a congressional statute. In Brecht v.

Court 94
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Federal appeals court blocks Missouri abortion restrictions

JURIST

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a lower court decision to block enforcement of a Missouri law that would place tight restrictions on access to abortion. The first bans abortion after eight weeks, with an exception in the case of a medical emergency but not in cases of rape or incest.

Court 190
article thumbnail

Student Loan Forgiveness Program Fails to Survive Supreme Court Scrutiny

Constitutional Law Reporter

“The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’” provisions of the student aid laws, “but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the Court.

Court 52
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Suits Alleging Discriminatory Transfers

Constitutional Law Reporter

Louis, Missouri , 601 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. City of St.

Court 52
article thumbnail

RICO injury, federal jurisdiction, and giving veterans the benefit of the doubt

SCOTUSBlog

Wullschleger and Brewer brought a putative class action in Missouri state court, alleging that the “prescription” designation is misleading because the Food and Drug Administration never evaluated the product, and that they were injured by the food’s higher price. In reviewing the Veterans Court decision, the U.S.

Felony 111
article thumbnail

September 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Missouri v. Army Corps of Engineers , No.