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
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.
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 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 Courtdecision and a congressional statute. In Brecht v.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a lower courtdecision 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.
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 Courtdecision, the U.S.
“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.
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.
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. 19 conferences) Missouri Dept. 12 and Jan.
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.
EPA (2024), she criticized the Courtsdecision to block an EPA rule without fully engaging with legal and procedural requirements, stating, The Court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule without fully engaging with both the relevant law and the voluminous record. Luxshare, Ltd.
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.
Investors who want the flexibility to consider all relevant risks to their investments have challenged these rules and laws in court, and, in both state and federal cases, the effort has succeeded. Recent Victories The decision from Missouri, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association [ (SIFMA) ] v.
The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.
They say Roe and Casey are not worthy of the deference that the court typically affords to its prior decisions. To the contrary, in the year it was ratified (1868), thirty of thirty-seven states explicitly criminalized abortion by statute.” Moreover, they write, “abortion was a longstanding common-law crime.”.
Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. The states argued that the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan while it was under review by the D.C. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. 20-1530 (U.S. 29, 2021); North American Coal Corp. 20-1531 (U.S. County of Maui v.
After the developers terminated the Keystone XL pipeline project, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 16, 2021 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction barring work on the pipeline. Missouri v. Biden , No. 4:21-cv-00287 (E.D.
In Minnesota, the district court granted the State of Minnesota’s motion to remand its case, which asserts state law claims under common law and consumer protection statutes. s consumer protection statute. On March 26, 2021, the court denied Exxon’s emergency motion for a temporary stay of the remand order.
The administration’s ultra-broad interpretation of the HEROES Act runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on the “major questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to “speak clearly when authorizing an [executive branch] agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.”
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