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
Share The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Idaho to temporarily enforce a state law criminalizing gender-transition care for minors against anyone who is not part of a lawsuit currently challenging that ban. Lynn Winmill temporarily blocked the state from enforcing any part of the law against anyone while the litigation continued.
The plaintiffs allege that this provision violates the Virginia Readmission Act , a law passed in 1870 alongside a series of statutes to readmit representatives from former Confederate states to Congress. Recently, litigation has been brought against an Idaho law that banned student ID cards as an adequate form of voter identification.
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.
Transmission lines are, like generation facilities, often held up by litigation. These permitting decisions may then subject transmission lines to NEPA, among other statutes. . The NWP 12 litigation has thus impeded two major pipelines: Keystone XL and Atlantic Coast. Three Recent Pipeline Setbacks. The following day the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency , the case of an Idaho couple who have been prohibited from building a home on land they own near Priest Lake, Idaho, because their lot contained wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” regulated by the Clean Water Act. During the argument session that begins on Oct. Goertz (Oct.
Each case features powerhouse law firms and public interest litigators operating at the highest levels of appellate strategy. Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, WilmerHale, King & Spalding, and the American Civil Liberties Union (among others) brought deep litigation benches and doctrinal sophistication. TikTok Opinion Court: U.S.
Each month, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART. and non-U.S. Resolute Forest Products, Inc. Greenpeace International , No.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Idaho, filed Dec. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati.
EPA (2025), Barrett dissented in favor of the EPAs authority to impose receiving water limitations under the Clean Water Act, arguing that such limitations were useful when EPA issues general permits to broad categories of dischargers, and pushing back against the majoritys restrictive interpretation of the statute. Luxshare, Ltd.
There are some differences in the case – in the Idaho case, the district court’s decision to grant relief beyond the plaintiffs – a so-called “universal injunction” – was more prominent. But the grant of a stay suggests that a majority of the court believes the issue is certworthy and that the state is likely to succeed.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. and non-U.S.
United States , the justices narrowed the scope of a federal criminal statute under which hundreds of Jan. The court in Corner Post ruled that the window to challenge an action by a federal agency, a six-year statute of limitations, begins to run when the plaintiff is injured, even if that injury comes long after the action occurs.
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