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 Supreme Court ruled Monday in Guam v. United States that a case against the US for causing toxic waste pollution in Guam may proceed. This case originated from a lawsuit by Guam against the US accusing the Navy of causing the contamination at the Ordot Dump. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Guam.
Navy and the territory of Guam that turns on interpretation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or the Superfund statute. Guam is a 30-mile-long island located in the Pacific Ocean 3,800 miles west of Hawaii. In 1944, Guam was recaptured by the U.S.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Guam in its dispute with the federal government over the cleanup costs of toxic waste on the island. The case, Guam v. United States , involves the Territory of Guam’s efforts to require the U.S. United States , involves the Territory of Guam’s efforts to require the U.S.
Share Monday’s argument in Guam v. United States featured sharply different interpretations of the contribution provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or the Superfund statute. Guam is appealing a ruling by the U.S. But the U.S.
People born in the other territories — Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. permits courts to defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ construction of a statute designed to benefit veterans, without first considering the pro-veteran canon of construction; and (2) whether Chevron should be overruled.
Even if the decision stands, it applies only in the Ninth Circuit, which encompasses Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Air pollution is governed at the federal, state, and sometimes local levels, and the relevant federal statute is the U.S.
On May 21, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) sued CMS on APA grounds, claiming that this change to the best price rule exceeds CMS’s statutory authority and is contrary to the Medicaid Rebate statute. Territories (American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
A federal court in Guam Friday denied a request to reinstate a total abortion ban on the island of Guam. The Attorney General of Guam Douglas Moylan filed the motion to reinstate the ban. Wade , does not impact the statute’s constitutionality. 20-134 , should remain in effect. Public Law No.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that enjoined the enforcement of a Guam law requiring in-person consultations before obtaining an abortion. The case is an appeal from the US District Court for the District of Guam. Circuit Judge Kenneth K.
Share Just four weeks after hearing oral argument, the Supreme Court on Monday issued a refreshingly clear, unanimous decision in Guam v. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that Guam could seek contribution from the U.S. United States. or a state].”.
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