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 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Tuesday in favor of the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation’s dispute with the state of Idaho regarding the tribe’s hunting rights on US land. Rather, they reside in northern Utah and southern Idaho.
The US Supreme Court granted an emergency request for stay led by Idaho officials, allowing the state to temporarily enforce a statewide ban on gender-affirming care for certain minors. T his ban is one of the first cases related to transgender health care to reach the nation’s highest court. Labrador v.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation heard oral argument in a case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act concerning choice-of-law rules. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in early 2019. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s commercial-activity exception.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in California Restaurant Association v. The court overturned a District Courtruling to invalidate a Berkeley, California, prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly-constructed buildings. O n Monday, April 17, 2023, the U.S. City of Berkeley.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’sruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Courtruled in Baker v. Sosa went to federal court, arguing that the officers violated his constitutional rights. A federal district court in Florida dismissed his lawsuit.
Idaho Governor Brad Little Wednesday signed a new abortion bill into law, despite expressing grave concerns about the wisdom and constitutionality of the measure and warning that it could re-traumatize victims of sexual assault. The post Idaho governor signs strict new abortion bill into law appeared first on JURIST - News.
“Red states sue feds to block abortion pill mail order sales; After a Supreme Courtruling stayed an injunction of the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a coalition of Republican attorneys general hope to demonstrate actual injuries”: Gabriel Tynes of Courthouse News Service has this report. District Judge Matthew J.
The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit seeking to roll back access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortions. The justices did not reach the merits of the challenge – that is, they did not rule on whether the FDA acted properly in expanding access to mifepristone.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overruled Monday a federal district court’s decision that doctors lacked standing to challenge an Arizona law banning abortion in cases of fetal abnormality.
However, these Democrats insist that a unilateral decision from Ferriero declaring it ratified would mean it is ratified … at least until some courts say otherwise. Democratic members and advocacy groups have pushed to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. In 1981, a federal district courtruled in Idaho v.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case concerning whether a 1986 federal law preempts Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. The Idaho statute criminalizes performing or attempting to perform an abortion unless not doing so would result in the mother’s death.
EDT as the court releases opinions in one or more cases from the current term. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Share We’ll be live this morning at 9:30 a.m. We will be live each day at 9:30 a.m.
Bankruptcy Court Said California City and Counties Could Not Sue Coal Company for Climate Change Impacts. A federal bankruptcy court in Missouri enjoined San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) from pursuing their climate change lawsuits against Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody). FEATURED CASE.
Below is my column in The Hill on the start of the new Term for the Supreme Court. ” Does that make the three liberals justices voting together on the Court the “judicial arm of the Democratic Party”? .” That is, of course, manifestly true for the highest court in the land. I was wrong. Of course not.
This new rule was contested on the basis of administrative overreach, but the revision was ultimately accepted after a 2018 Supreme Courtruling. This revision to the CWA may affect the outcome of a case currently before the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the first oral arguments for this review in October.
Share Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Heres the Wednesday morning read: U.S. Galston, The Wall Street Journal) The post The morning read for Wednesday, Jan. 29 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
As long as the harm isnt something specifically covered by precedent, the general feeling of courts is that law enforcement shouldnt be punished for rights violations they can plausibly (at least under precedent) claim they had no idea were rights violations, no matter how immediately egregious those rights violations were. Carpenter did.
Share After granting 15 cases from the justices’ “long conference” last week, the Supreme Court on Monday denied more than a thousand more petitions for review. The justices turned down a request from the Biden administration to send a dispute over the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act back to the lower courts for another look.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. After going two conferences without any new relists, the Supreme Court ended the relist drought this week with a vengeance. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to lift those orders while they appealed.
The Trump docket Even before the Supreme Court issued its July 1 decision holding that former presidents cannot face criminal liability for their official acts, Trump had already effectively scored a major victory from the justices. The 6-3 ruling that came from the court on July 1 made the prospect of any trial even more uncertain.
Even worse, four states Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky rescinded their prior ratifications and a fifth, South Dakota, set its ratification to expire if the ERA was not adopted by the 1979 deadline. However, in 1981, a federal district courtruled in Idaho v. It failed to do so. Take student loan forgiveness.
rejoicing and falsely telling women that they can now go to court and enforce the amendment to restore such things as abortion rights. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. However, in 1981, a federal district courtruled in Idaho v.
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