Search

The article focuses on the Third Circuit's decision that a taxpayer's claim regarding the allocation of prepayments was not moot, reversing the Tax Court's dismissal of the case. Topics include the invalidation of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) setoffs of tax prepayments, the jurisdiction of the Tax Court in reviewing such setoffs; and the broader implications for taxpayer rights in Collection Due Process (CDP) hearings.

The Delaware Supreme Court recently reversed a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery, upholding a "forfeiture-for-competition" provision in a limited partnership agreement. The provision allows a partnership to withhold certain payments from a partner who engages in competitive activities outlined in the agreement. The case involved Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and former partners who voluntarily withdrew from the partnership. The Delaware Supreme Court found that the provision was valid under Delaware's strong public policy favoring freedom of contract in the alternative entity setting. This decision provides reassurance that such provisions in alternative entity agreements will generally be enforced as written. However, the court did not address the enforceability of noncompete terms specifically, leaving questions about their standards and related issues for future cases. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court in the UK recently delivered a landmark judgment regarding the consideration of indirect emissions in environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for fossil fuel projects. The case involved the expansion of an oil well near Gatwick Airport, and the court ruled that the planning consent granted by Surrey County Council was unlawful because it did not assess the indirect carbon emissions associated with the extracted oil. The judgment raises questions about how far developers need to factor in indirect emissions when considering environmental impacts. The ruling is expected to make it more difficult for future planning applications for the oil well development to gain consent. [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the constitutionality of the 2020 Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), which created the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) to regulate medication control and racetrack safety in thoroughbred horseracing. The Act has faced challenges in the Sixth Circuit, with parties filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. Although the Supreme Court initially denied certiorari, a petition for rehearing has been filed based on a ruling by the Fifth Circuit that found the Act to be unconstitutional due to its delegation of enforcement power to private actors. The Supreme Court is currently considering the petition for rehearing. [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the application of the Transportation Exemption from the arbitration of claims set forth in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In the case of Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, the Court overturned a Second Circuit decision that required workers to be employed in the transportation industry to avail themselves of the exemption. The Court reaffirmed that the exemption depends on the nature of a worker's duties, not the nature of the employer's business. The Court found that the focus should be on the workers' role in the free flow of goods across borders, rather than the industry of the employer. This ruling leaves open challenges to the test and standard for determining which employees qualify as transportation workers under the exemption. [Extracted from the article]

In Harness v. Watson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Mississippi Constitution's Jim Crow-era felon disenfranchisement provision, enacted by the infamous 1890 Mississippi Constitutional Convention. The express purpose of those who attended the 1890 Convention was to oppress Black Mississippians and systematically exclude them from the political process. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit held the disenfranchisement provision constitutional, claiming that it was reenacted by a 1968 amendment and thus purged of its discriminatory taint. However, even accepting that the reenactment of a discriminatory provision can purge it of its original discriminatory taint, this Note argues that the Fifth Circuit erred in two respects. First, it adopted a flawed conception of reenactment by failing to consider who participated in the reenactment process. U.S. Circuit Judge James Graves, dissenting in Harness, noted the sad irony that the votes that purportedly reenacted this discriminatory provision were cast according to the mandate of the discriminatory provision itself. Building on that observation, this Note argues that Black Mississippians lacked a meaningful voice in the 1968 amendment process, both with respect to choosing the representatives who proposed the amendment and with respect to the ratifying election. Armed with qualitative and quantitative evidence supporting these conclusions, it suggests that under these circumstances, the 1968 amendment could not have purged the provision of its discriminatory taint. Second, the Fifth Circuit used three problematic doctrinal tools exhibited by the Supreme Court in other areas of voting rights law previously identified by prominent scholars and practitioners. They are (faux) naiveté, the presumption of legislative good faith, and animus laundering. This Note argues that these tools were essential to the holding that the amendment purged the provision of its discriminatory taint. But in using them, the court was able to avoid meaningfully grappling with the history of racism in Mississippi. Its analysis was thus deficient. Ultimately, this Note concludes that whether it is ever possible for the reenactment of a discriminatory provision to purge the provision's discriminatory taint, such a reenactment could not have occurred with respect to the provision at issue in Harness. The plaintiffs in Harness filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, and it refused to hear the case or reverse the Fifth Circuit's decision. But even in the face of this grave injustice, the importance of voting and democratic organizing remains ever important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate an anti-discrimination instruction in its examination manual. The appeal comes after a decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which struck down the manual update. The CFPB argues that the plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, that the venue is improper, and that the Consumer Financial Protection Act allows the CFPB to treat discrimination as unfair. The appeal also challenges the District Court's application of the major questions doctrine. [Extracted from the article]

A group of fifteen student loan securitization trusts has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their appeal regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) jurisdiction over entities used as securitization vehicles for consumer financial products, specifically student loans. The Third Circuit had previously affirmed the CFPB's jurisdiction, stating that the trusts are "covered persons" under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) due to their involvement in offering and providing consumer financial products. The trusts argue that they are passive vehicles and not engaged in student loan servicing, and that the loan servicing is performed by an independent entity. They also claim that the Bureau's enforcement action should be dismissed because it was initiated prior to the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the CFPB director's removal. [Extracted from the article]

The article covers two main topics. The first part discusses a conservative transition plan called Project 2025, which outlines proposed changes to the federal government if Trump becomes president. The plan includes controversial ideas such as lifetime caps on Medicaid and the elimination of the Department of Education. The article criticizes these proposals for their potential negative impact on marginalized communities and the functioning of the government. The second part of the article focuses on a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Trump v. United States, which grants the president near-total immunity from prosecution for illegal activities. The article criticizes this decision, arguing that it undermines the rule of law and enables a potential dictatorship. Dissenting justices express concern about the Court's power and the erosion of accountability for former presidents. Overall, the article provides a critical perspective on conservative policy proposals and the Supreme Court's ruling, highlighting potential negative consequences for marginalized communities and democratic principles. It also discusses the issue of Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanisms and calls for their end. [Extracted from the article]

This article provides a guide for businesses on how to navigate the local zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) in New Hampshire. It explains that the ZBA process varies between municipalities, so the first step is to visit the municipality's website or contact the planning coordinator for information. The article outlines the general process, including application deadlines, hearings, public comment, and the board's decision-making process. It also explains the appeal process if the ZBA denies a request for relief. The article concludes by recommending that business owners seek guidance from an attorney to navigate this complex process. [Extracted from the article]

The New Hampshire Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to the approval of a proposed casino in Concord. The challenge comes from a Concord resident, Kassey Cameron, who argues that she should have standing to contest the approval of the casino despite living 2,600 feet away from the site. Cameron's lawyer argues that the impact of the casino could still affect her, including increased need for public services. The case began when the Concord Planning Board approved the first phase of the project, sparking backlash from residents. The Supreme Court has accepted the case and mediation has been deemed eligible, but both parties have chosen to continue the legal battle. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses several recent developments in the railway industry. The U.S. Supreme Court will review a decision that blocked the construction of the Uinta Basin Railway in Utah, which was intended to transport crude oil. The court will determine whether regulators are required to consider the environmental impacts of drilling and refining oil. Additionally, BNSF Railway has been ordered to pay $394.5 million to the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community for violating an operating agreement by sending crude-oil trains across tribal land. Finally, James E. Strates Shows and CSX Transportation have reached an agreement to move the Strates Fair Train to Hamburg, N.Y., for the centennial celebration of the Erie County Fair. [Extracted from the article]

The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the "Chevron deference" precedent will have a significant impact on the regulatory landscape for businesses, particularly manufacturers. The Chevron precedent required courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. However, this decision was overturned due to concerns about agency overreach and the lack of consistency in regulations. Proponents argue that clear guidelines from Congress are needed to avoid ambiguity and ensure the effective implementation of laws. Business leaders emphasize the importance of a pragmatic regulatory framework that supports growth and job creation in the modern manufacturing sector. [Extracted from the article]

The article details guitar manufacturer Dean Guitars' claim of a major legal victory in its appeal against Gibson Brands, Inc., with the U.S. Court of Appeals granting a reversal and new trial. Topics discussed include Dean Guitars' defense of its V and Z models, Gibson's intention to challenge the appellate decision, and the broader implications for trademark protection in the guitar industry.

The Supreme Court decision will embolden presidents to undertake an even more reckless foreign policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision in Moyle v. United States, dismissing the case as "improvidently granted." The lower court's pause on the Idaho law in question will remain in place while litigation continues. The National Right to Life was seeking a ruling on the merits, but the Court determined that further resolution is needed in the lower courts. The state of Idaho argued that the government's interpretation of EMTALA would make their pro-life law unenforceable and turn hospital emergency rooms into "federal abortion enclaves." However, the U.S. government clarified during arguments that they were not doing so. The National Right to Life hopes that the lower courts will uphold the Idaho law, which allows for care in cases of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and medical emergencies. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the influence of dark-money interests on the Supreme Court and the potential consequences of a conservative supermajority. It highlights the role of Leonard Leo, a judicial adviser to Donald Trump who helped select three Supreme Court justices, in shaping the court's composition. The article argues that the court's conservative majority has already made decisions that limit abortion rights, gun regulations, and environmental protections, among other issues. It also raises concerns about the court's advocacy for Donald Trump and the potential impact of a second Trump term on the court's agenda. [Extracted from the article]

A recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of 89 Holland Park (Management) vs Dell & Dell suggests that landlords should not rely on general wording in leases to recover litigation costs from leaseholders. The court ruled against 89 Holland Park (Management), a management company owned by the leaseholders of a block of flats, who had tried to recoup their legal costs from the leaseholders via service charge provisions in the leases. The Court of Appeal found that the costs were not recoverable under the provisions in question. The passing of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 further supports the idea that recovering litigation costs from leaseholders will become more difficult for residential landlords. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Defense Department civilian in a furlough case, stating that federal employees do not always have to appeal to the federal circuit within 60 days of a final ruling from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The court decided that federal courts can review individual cases and determine if there are exigent circumstances that allow for more time to file an appeal. The case involved a Navy employee who missed the 60-day window due to the MSPB losing its quorum and the employee not receiving the final ruling. The Supreme Court's decision opens the door for late appeals to be considered based on the circumstances. [Extracted from the article]

The New York Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Howard Hughes Holdings, allowing them to proceed with their controversial tower project at 250 Water St. in the South Street Seaport. The court denied a motion from the community group South Street Seaport Coalition to appeal a prior ruling that upheld a key approval for the project. The project, which has faced community pushback, will include a 27-story mixed-use tower with approximately 400 apartments, including 100 affordable units. The court's decision has been praised by the developer and the city, but criticized by the coalition as enabling backroom dealings and setting a bad precedent for future preservationist battles. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) can continue to operate and maintain its current funding structure, averting a potential crisis for the agency and others with alternative appropriations mechanisms. The court rejected the argument that the CFPB's funding setup was unconstitutional, stating that it is in line with many arrangements agencies have had since the nation's founding. The decision is seen as a victory for the CFPB and ensures its stability and continuity in carrying out its consumer protection work. However, there are dissenting opinions and calls for more accountability for the bureau. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is considering whether former President Donald Trump should have immunity from prosecution in the case of his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. While lower courts have rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court seemed interested in the possibility. If the case is sent back to a lower court, it may not be resolved until 2025, potentially allowing a re-elected President Trump to dismiss the case. The court's decision on presidential immunity is significant, as it determines the extent to which presidents can be held accountable for their actions. [Extracted from the article]

The pending Supreme Court verdict in the case of Finch vs Surrey County Council could have significant implications for future planning applications in the UK. The case revolves around the inclusion of indirect emissions in environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for development projects. Climate campaigner Sarah Finch argues that the future combustion of petroleum extracted from the Horse Hill oil wells should be considered in the EIA report. If the court upholds Finch's claim, it could lead to delays and increased costs for development projects across various sectors. The government is already planning to phase out EIAs and replace them with environmental outcomes reports (EORs), but the Supreme Court's ruling may still provide guidance for the new assessments. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in late April regarding Donald Trump's claim of "total immunity" for all "official acts" undertaken as president. This decision has frozen Trump's 2020 election subversion trial until a ruling is issued, which could be as late as June. Legal experts do not expect the court to uphold Trump's claims, but the timing of the decision could have negative consequences, such as delaying the trial until after the election or allowing Trump to campaign while the trial is ongoing. Some believe that a ruling against Trump could have significant implications for the election, while others argue that the court's decision to hear the case is necessary to establish some form of qualified immunity for presidents. Ultimately, the article concludes that Trump's fate will be determined at the ballot box in November. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot use the 14th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from their ballots, invalidating attempts to disqualify him in Colorado, Illinois, and Maine. The court's decision stated that leaving ballot eligibility up to individual state decisions could nullify the votes of millions. However, there were fissures within the court, with five conservative justices ruling that only Congress had the power to block candidates under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of overly broad reasoning, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed skepticism of the conservative view. Critics argue that the court's decision renders Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ineffective and could lead to political chaos. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the case of Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which involves a challenge to a Federal Reserve rule that caps debit-card processing fees for large banks. The case centers around the question of when Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims accrue, either upon rule promulgation or upon injury to the rule challenger. The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the claim accrued when the rule was published, leading to the dismissal of the lawsuit. However, Corner Post is asking the Supreme Court to adopt the position of the Sixth Circuit, which holds that the limitation period begins when a plaintiff is first "adversely affected" by an agency regulation. The case is scheduled for oral argument on February 20, 2024. [Extracted from the article]

The article reviews Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's criticism of California Governor Gavin Newsom, labeling him as "very pro-criminal," amidst a discussion on a recent court decision blocking a concealed-carry ban.

Former President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that denied him presidential immunity in his federal elections interference criminal case. Trump's lawyers argue that his appeal deserves careful consideration and should not be expedited. The ruling rejected Trump's claim that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken within the "outer perimeter" of their official duties after leaving office. Trump may be seeking to delay his trial until after the November election. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the Supreme Court scheduling oral arguments for FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on March 26, the first abortion-related case since the 2022 Dobbs ruling. It delves into the case involving the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations on mifepristone, the abortion pill, with topics including the original lawsuit, the 5th Circuit's actions, and the upcoming Supreme Court review.