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 United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (and the later denial of a motion for consideration ) in rejecting the much touted lawsuit to give residents a vote in Congress. I have written about D.C. It is a recurring problem.
So Congress, for the first time, passed a law authorizing the chief justice to hire an administrative assistant. From 1972 to 1985, Cannon served as Burger’s assistant, helping him implement various changes to modernize the court. In June, the courtruled in R.G. & He served the court while Burger was chief justice.
The dissent contended that “a federal courtneed not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.” Richardson v.
The court was not persuaded that completion of construction of the pipeline would moot the appeals and concluded both that the Commission was not required to consider whether the appeal raised substantial issues and also that it was not clear that the appeals raised substantial questions that would override other factors to require a stay.
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