Search

The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, which required federal courts to defer to regulators' interpretation of vaguely written laws. This decision will reshape how federal agencies oversee banks and will empower banks to challenge agency rules more frequently. The ruling will require agencies to provide clearer justifications for their interpretations, while Congress will need to draft more precise legislation. The decision could introduce more uncertainty and legal challenges to bank regulation, but it does not automatically ensure deregulation. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the ongoing issue of migrants stowing away in lorries despite heightened focus on small boat crossings. Topics include the significant increase in fines for drivers and operators found with stowaways, the experiences of EM Rogers Transport with repeated fines despite following all required checks, and the confusion and frustration caused by the apparent ineffectiveness of border controls in preventing stowaways.

A recent Supreme Court ruling has established that landowners can bring claims of nuisance against water companies for discharging sewage into waterways. This ruling overturns the widely held belief that the Water Industry Act of 1991 protects private water companies from legal claims. The decision opens the door to potential claims for both trespass and nuisance derived from the unauthorised discharge of sewage. This ruling re-establishes the rights of property owners to the full enjoyment of their land, including watercourses. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has ruled in a case involving Japanese knotweed encroachment, providing clarity for landowners seeking damages. The court unanimously overturned a decision by the Court of Appeal and ruled that damages were not warranted in this case. The ruling re-established the 'but for' test of causation, which asks whether the causative factor is irrelevant. The decision brings simplicity to cases involving invasive plant species and will likely temper claimant appetite for litigation in this area. [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 ruling against the Fearless Fund's grant contest by a federal appeals court panel is seen as an act of judicial overreach that could have negative implications for charitable giving in the United States. The court held that the contest, which awards grants to businesses owned by Black women, violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This ruling could potentially impact how charities operate and limit philanthropic funding for racial justice. The court's failure to consider the charitable nature of the contest oversimplifies the issue and disregards the historical context of philanthropy. The decision may ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. [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 article discusses two separate legal cases. In the first case, the court ruled that an inmate's waiver of counsel was intelligent, knowing, and voluntary, affirming the district court's ruling. This case highlights the tension between the right to counsel and the right to self-representation. In the second case, the court determined that prison officials were protected by qualified immunity in a deliberate indifference claim regarding inmate safety and medical needs. The court ruled that there was no constitutional right for security checks or the delivery of medical services in an emergency. The article provides a dissenting opinion and discusses the standard for deliberate indifference in correctional settings. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses two legal cases related to competency to stand trial and failure to protect a pretrial detainee from suicide. In the first case, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, stating that the trial court did not err in declining to conduct a formal competency hearing following the defendant's suicide attempt. In the second case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that jail officials were protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the officials had subjective knowledge of the detainee's suicide risk. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding the criteria for competency and the need for subjective knowledge in failure to protect cases. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses two legal cases related to civil commitment and competency to stand trial. In the first case, a federal prisoner challenged his indefinite civil commitment prior to release, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that there was sufficient evidence to establish a causal nexus between the prisoner's mental condition and his dangerousness. In the second case, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, which declined to conduct a formal competency hearing for a defendant who attempted suicide, ruling that the trial court did not violate the Constitution or state statutes. These cases highlight the complexities and tensions involved in balancing individual rights and public safety in the legal system. [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has vacated the private fund adviser rules adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August 2023. The court ruled that the SEC exceeded its authority in adopting these rules, as they were unauthorized and had untenable legal bases. The rules, which were set to have a compliance date in September 2024, included restrictions on activities, quarterly statements, preferential treatment, private fund audits, adviser-led secondaries, and recordkeeping. It is uncertain whether the SEC will appeal the ruling, but for now, private fund advisers are unlikely to need to follow these rules. However, the SEC may still raise similar requirements in future examinations, and investors may seek certain terms that would have been granted under the disputed rules. [Extracted from the article]

A recent court case involving Sainsbury's and landlord Medley Assets has brought attention to the limitations of the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act and has sparked calls for a reform of the law. Sainsbury's held the lease for a building in Camden, London, and sought to renew it, but the landlord opposed the renewal due to plans for redevelopment. The court ruled in favor of Sainsbury's, stating that the landlord had not proven a genuine intention to carry out the proposed works. This case highlights the need for potential reform of the 1954 act, which has been criticized for providing tenants with too much protection. [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]

The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that when a district court compels claims to arbitration, it is required to stay the case rather than dismiss it outright. This decision is important for parties seeking to compel arbitration, as they often seek dismissal of the case. The case in question, Smith v. Spizzirri, involved claims of violations of employment laws. The district court initially dismissed the case, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that the text, structure, and purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act all point to the conclusion that a court does not have the discretion to dismiss a suit when arbitration is requested. [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]

This article examines the 70th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education case and its impact on integration and educational equity. It presents different perspectives on the successes and shortcomings of the case and offers suggestions for achieving equitable and integrated schools. The article acknowledges progress towards racial equality in the United States but emphasizes the need for further work to fully realize the vision of Brown and create a multiracial democracy. It discusses ongoing challenges of racial segregation and inequality in the American public education system, particularly the disproportionate representation of Black students in high-poverty schools. The article also addresses efforts to redefine the meaning of Brown, specifically in relation to affirmative action in higher education, arguing that these efforts undermine progress towards racial equality and jeopardize the future of a multiracial democracy. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and upholding the true meaning of Brown in order to achieve racial justice and equality. [Extracted from the article]

The City of London Corporation's decision to block an injunction that would have halted the "Justice Quarter" scheme has sparked renewed interest in the issue of rights of light. The project, which includes courts, a police headquarters, and commercial developments, was facing objections from neighboring building owners. The City Corporation used Section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to override the objectors' right to seek an injunction, citing the public interest in facilitating the redevelopment. The use of Section 203 is seen as a last resort and can be challenged through judicial review. [Extracted from the article]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently addressed the issue of "mootness fees" in a merger objection lawsuit. The case involved Akorn, Inc., which faced a lawsuit from six shareholders claiming insufficient disclosure in a proxy statement related to a $4 billion merger with Fresenius Kabi AG. Akorn paid $322,500 in plaintiffs' attorney fees to resolve the lawsuit and proceed with the merger. One shareholder requested that the court require the attorneys to return the fees, arguing that they had not achieved any benefit for the investors. The appellate court discussed the history and merits of mootness fees cases, noting that such litigation has not ended despite previous criticism. The court also highlighted the impact of certain Delaware Court of Chancery decisions on reducing the number of lawsuits filed against large deals. However, it expressed concern that these lawsuits have shifted from Delaware to federal courts. The case was remanded for further consideration, and the original plaintiffs' appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the ongoing debate surrounding India's forest definitions and the recent Supreme Court order mandating all states and Union Territories to ascertain their total forestland based on the dictionary definition of a forest. The court has ordered the government to adhere to the 28-year-old dictionary meaning of forest until a final verdict is reached on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 Amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The petitioners argue that the amendment could exclude a significant portion of the total forest area. The article highlights the challenges in accurately identifying and defining forests in India, including the lack of access to expert committee reports and the diversion of designated forest areas for other purposes. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the ongoing confusion and litigation surrounding the definition of "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Rapanos v. United States added to the confusion, with different circuits applying different standards. Both the Obama and Trump administrations attempted to provide clarity through rulemaking, but their rules were repealed. The recent Sackett v. EPA decision rejected the significant nexus standard and endorsed the Rapanos plurality's standard, but questions remain about the interpretation of certain terms. The article concludes that the WOTUS issue is still unresolved and hopes for a more consistent and clear resolution in the future. [Extracted from the article]

This article examines two legal cases involving intellectual disability and conditional release of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. The first case involved a capital murder trial where the defendant failed to prove intellectual disability based on expert testimony and was denied relief. In the second case, the court upheld the revocation of release for a defendant with a history of aggressive behavior, emphasizing the burden of proof on the insanity acquittee to demonstrate they do not pose a substantial risk to the public. The article also addresses the misinterpretation of a specific section of the law and emphasizes the importance of understanding evidence accurately to avoid misunderstandings. Published in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. [Extracted from the article]

In the article "Fourth Circuit's Ruling in Sony Music v. Cox Communications and ISP Liability," the Fourth Circuit held that Cox Communications Inc., an internet service provider (ISP), was contributorily liable but not vicariously liable for copyright infringement by its users. The court found that Cox did not qualify for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Safe Harbor Provision because its termination policy for repeat infringers was inadequate. Additionally, the court determined that Cox did not directly profit from the infringement and did not have the right and ability to supervise its users, thus not making them vicariously liable. However, Cox was still found to be contributorily liable because they had knowledge of the infringing activity and materially contributed to it by continuing to provide service to repeat infringers. [Extracted from the article]

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Patterson v. Howe that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The plaintiff had failed to timely respond to requests for admission in a state court collections case, which were deemed admitted. The plaintiff then filed a separate federal lawsuit against the creditor's attorney, alleging unfair debt collection practices. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not suffer concrete harm and lacked standing. The decision is consistent with previous rulings in the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a recent High Court ruling concerning "slot-in" applications for planning permissions. The case specifically revolves around the redevelopment of the Aylesbury housing estate in south London. The court ruled in favor of a resident who challenged alterations to the plans for the estate's redevelopment. The ruling focused on the use of the term "severable" in the planning permission and clarified that the term was not adequately defined. While the ruling is seen as correct, there may be implications for future legal disputes in the planning sector. [Extracted from the article]

According to Forbes, former President Donald Trump's net worth has been significantly impacted by his legal troubles, with over $540 million in legal judgments against him. As a result, his net worth has decreased to an estimated $2.3 billion, down from $2.5 billion in 2023. However, there is potential for Trump to recover financially through his stake in Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind his Twitter knockoff, Truth Social. Institutional investors have valued his stake at over $3 billion, which could double his net worth if the stock remains high for the next six months. On the other hand, there is also a risk that the stock could plummet. Trump also faces the possibility of having his assets in New York seized if he fails to pay his debts. [Extracted from the article]

Yelp has filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the search giant of illegally monopolizing the local search market. The lawsuit comes after a recent ruling that declared Google a monopoly for stifling competition in the online search market. Yelp's CEO criticized Google for prioritizing its own services over fair competition, resulting in searches that lead to zero clicks and keep users on Google's search results page. This lawsuit, along with previous legal actions against Google, may signal the beginning of a series of comparable challenges. The main point of contention lies in the clashing business models of Google and Yelp, both of which rely on advertising revenue. [Extracted from the article]

A recent court decision has overturned the ban on non-compete agreements, which restrict workers' ability to change jobs and can lead to lower salaries. The ban, which was set to take effect on September 4, was stopped by a District Court Judge in Dallas who claimed that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) exceeded its authority and that the ban would harm businesses. Non-compete agreements are not limited to the tech and creative industries, but also affect workers in various fields such as hairdressing, janitorial work, security, and fast food. The FTC estimated that the ban could have increased workers' earnings by $400 billion over the next decade. The court ruling reflects a conservative legal argument that federal agencies have limited powers, and that Congress or individual states should regulate non-compete agreements. The ruling also highlights the ongoing debate over the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. The FTC is expected to appeal the decision, but in the meantime, businesses and employees are left uncertain about the future of non-compete agreements. [Extracted from the article]

The article reports on the affirmation by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeal on September 4, 2024 that the Internet Archive's (IA) program of scanning print books and distributing digital copies on one-print book, one-ebook, one-user basis for free is not protected by fair use doctrine. Topics include the case involved in the ruling, IA's fair use defense according to the ruling by Judge John Koeltl, and response of IA's Director of Library Services Chris Freeland to the ruling.

This article from Rolling Stone discusses journalist E. Jean Carroll's decision to come forward with her experience of sexual assault by Donald Trump and her subsequent legal battle. Carroll explains that she initially hesitated to speak out due to concerns about her parents and potential retaliation, but was inspired by the #MeToo movement. She ultimately sued Trump and was awarded damages in two separate court cases. Carroll reflects on the challenges faced by survivors of sexual assault and the impact of her decision to come forward. She also discusses her life after the trial and her plans for the money she was awarded. [Extracted from the article]

A U.S. district court has ruled that Google's search and advertising business is an illegal monopoly, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court found that Google had maintained its monopoly through anticompetitive deals with vendors, such as Apple, to be the default search engine on their platforms. However, the court did not rule against Google in all complaints and no sanctions were imposed. The decision could potentially impact consumer choice of search providers and mobile advertising revenue, but further rulings and enforcement will determine the extent of these effects. Google plans to appeal the decision. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses a legal case, Cox v. Kijakazi, which involved the retroactivity of updated Social Security Administration (SSA) listings and the application of the treating physician rule in disability claims. The case centered around Angela Cox's denial of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits due to the application of updated SSA listings and the ALJ's failure to give controlling weight to her treating physician's opinion. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the application of new SSA listings was not retroactive and emphasized the importance of the treating physician rule. The article highlights the balance between updating agency regulations and protecting claimant rights, as well as the potential impact on patient access to resources. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a court case in which a nursing facility malpractice claim related to a COVID-19 death was remanded to state court. The defendants had attempted to remove the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship and federal question jurisdiction, but the court rejected these arguments. The court also rejected the argument that the federal officer removal doctrine applied. The article highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of federal jurisdiction in medical malpractice cases and emphasizes that federal jurisdiction should not be assumed unless explicitly stated by Congress. [Extracted from the article]