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 Seven County, backers of a proposed train linking Utah oilfields to refineries on the Gulf Coast ask the justices to overturn a lower courtdecision blocking the project and narrow the scope of what environmental impacts the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act requires agencies to review. Eagle County, Colorado.
September 1, 2023: TILA Disclosures re Index Rates; California Garnishment ; Minnesota Debt Collection December 1, 2023: Bankruptcy December 31, 2023: Utah Data Privacy Musings by Diane Consumer legal protections are rare. – Diane L.
Aereo finally lost a courtdecision. See our summary of the NY decision here ). The UtahCourt issued an injunction preventing Aereo from operating in Utah until the issue is decided by the Supreme Court. . Does this Utahdecision serve as a preview of the upcoming Supreme Courtdecision?
also a Navajo Nation citizen, on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation, which is located in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In December 2017, Denezpi entered an Alford plea to a single count of assault and battery, a criminal offense under the tribal code, before the Court of Indian Offenses. Code of Federal Regulations.
The legal issue in Castro-Huerta revolves around an apparent conflict between the General Crimes Act (also known as the Indian Country Crimes Act) and a series of Supreme Courtdecisions on the power of states to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against other non-Indians in Indian country.
The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by the state of Utah seeking to assert state control over 18.5 million acres of federally owned lands, leaving in place a lower court ruling that upheld federal authority. Utah remains able and willing to challenge any BLM land management decisions that harm Utah.
The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted BLM’s and federal officials’ motion for voluntary remand without vacatur of claims that they failed to comply with NEPA in connection with 27 oil and gas leasing decisions across Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Montana between September 2016 and March 2019.
A federal district court in Arizona rejected the group’s request to stop the land exchange, and the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed that ruling. A list of this week’s featured petitions is below: Utah v. 1701(a)(1) of perpetual federal retention of unappropriated public lands in Utah is unconstitutional.
Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Claims Regarding Environmental Review for Oil Pipeline. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied petitions for further review of an appellate courtdecision finding all but one aspect of the environmental review for the Enbridge Line 3 oil pipeline project to be adequate. filed Sept.
6 rioters win early release, even before key Supreme Court ruling (Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post) Utah, trade groups ask Supreme Court to review oil rail line (Niina H. Here’s the Wednesday morning read: Some Jan.
It was in response to the Supreme Courtdecision Kelo v. In that case, the court ruled that the government could take someone’s property for private economic development under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Claus, saying it qualified as a “public use.” New London.
After Temporarily Blocking Activity on Helium Extraction Project in Southeastern Utah, Federal Court Denied Emergency Injunctive Relief. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of a helium extraction project in an area of the San Rafael Desert in southeastern Utah covered by an oil and gas lease sold in December 2018. 20-472 (U.S.
While the decision has been appealed , a federal district court in Utah v. Revoking Chevron would have enormous effects across the federal bench even though the Supreme Court itself has ignored the doctrine in recent years. In the Utah v. There is, however, a notable exception to this trend.
Some of these states had inactive preexisting laws banning abortion that have returned to effect in the wake of Roe, while others intentional passed “trigger laws” with language enacting their provisions the moment a courtdecision overturning Roe or an amendment or legislation codifying a state’s right to restrict abortion went into effect.
Here’s the Wednesday morning read: Trump allies crush misinformation research despite Supreme Court loss (Cat Zakrzewski & Naomi Nix, The Washington Post) Bears, Fish, and Wolves’ New Predator: the Supreme Court?
Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that she believed the Court’s interpretation would allow defendants to “sidestep” the general bar on appellate review by “shoehorning” a civil rights or federal officer removal argument into their case for removal. The court also declined to sever and transfer the land-based portion of the lawsuit.
Further, the court noted that ERISA’s savings clause, essentially an escape hatch from preemption, would not allow for the rules’ survival because the laws “pose an obstacle” to ERISA’s comprehensive scheme. Within ERISA’s framework, from which state-by-state deviation is not allowed, is language at issue in an appeal in Utah v.
BLM Dropped Appeal of Adverse Decision on Environmental Review for Utah Coal Mine Expansion. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government’s unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal of a March 2021 District of Utahdecision that found that the U.S. June 22, 2021). June 21, 2021).
They say Roe and Casey are not worthy of the deference that the court typically affords to its prior decisions. Casey, they argue, “does not represent long-settled doctrine, rests on a foundation of flawed judicial reasoning, and boasts no traditional reliance interests.”
DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. Parties Voluntarily Dismissed Appeals of Federal CourtDecision Requiring More Climate Change Analysis for Wyoming Oil and Gas Leases. The federal defendants, the States of Wyoming and Utah, and several trade groups appealed the district court’s November 2020 decision. filed Apr.
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. The cases were filed in 2016 , 2020 , and 2021.
Utah Federal Court Said Analysis of Coal Mine Expansion’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts Was Inadequate. The federal district court for the District of Utah found that BLM failed to adequately consider greenhouse gas and climate change impacts of a proposed coal lease authorizing the expansion of a coal mine. 1:19-cv-02869 (D.
Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee and someone who has endorsed Trump. There is debate over “officer of the United States” and “Term Limits,” which the chief justice asks Mitchell to clarify that he’s referring to a 1995 Supreme Courtdecision, U.S. There will be a packed courtroom, though. Term Limits v.
They argue that the court nonetheless should grant review in order to clarify the law for future elections. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, has already opined that “ there is a strong likelihood that the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Courtdecision violates the Federal Constitution.”
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