Search

The article highlights several cases from the October term of 2017 which could impact the work of the U.S. Congress comprising Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP and Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The topic addressed include information on the details on the Murphy case which is based on prohibiting a state from partially repealing a state law.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association wherein the court consider whether a federal statute understood to bar the partial repeal of sports gambling prohibition runs afoul of the anti-commandeering principle under the Tenth Amendment. It notes that case resolution of the court could be consequential for the anti-commandeering doctrine. The federal statute involves the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA).

The article explores four notable U.S. Supreme Court cases that could impact the work of U.S. Congress including Carpenter v. United States, Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Gill v. Whitford and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It provides background information as well as summarizes the arguments that were or are likely to be presented to the court. The implications that the court's ruling could have for Congress are also explored.

The article discusses the court case "Ziglar v. Abbasi" in which the court suggested that a judicially created legal remedy might be inappropriate in a case presenting special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by the U.S. Congress. It is noted that there are a number of economic and governmental concerns while determining monetary and other liabilities of government employees.

The article discusses the court case "Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer" which examines the constitutionality of a state policy which prohibit distribution of public funds to religious entities. It is evident that Trinity Lutheran was centered on a challenge to a program administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) of Missouri that reimburses eligible nonprofit organizations that install playground surfaces made from recycled tires.

The article discusses the court case "Session v. Morales-Santana" which has the most consequential implications for future judicial review of immigration and citizenship matters. It is noted that the Court in this case ruled that a gender-based distinction in the derivative citizenship rules violate equal protection requirements. It is noted that the case focuses on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the U.S.

The article discusses the court case "Matal v. Tam" which involved a dispute at the intersection of First Amendment and trademark law. It is noted the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard arguments on January 18, 2017 in which the sole question before the Court was whether the disparagement provision is facially invalid under the First Amendment. It is noted that the opinion of Supreme held that the disparagement provision violates the Free Speech Clause.

The article presents review of select major rulings of the Supreme Court during October Term 2016. It provides background information on cases; summarizes arguments presented to the Court, explains ultimate ruling of the Court, and analyzes implications of the Court's ruling on the U.S. Congress. Some of the discussed cases are Matal vs. Tam, Sessions v. Morales-Santana, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. vs. Comer, and Ziglar vs. Abbasi.

The article focuses on the report released by Congressional Research Service for Congress titled "Overview of Constitutional Challenges to the National Security Agency (NSA) Collection Activities and Recent Developments" on April 1, 2014. Topics include NSA collection activities approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), bulk collection of telephony metadata under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and FISCR Protect America Act Litigation.

The article discusses the court case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, as a challenge to a U.S. Constitutional amendment, section 702 of the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It offers details of the litigation challenging the provision, the dismissal on standing grounds by a New York City federal judge in 2009, and the disagreement by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It explains the Supreme Court's majority and dissenting opinions in its February 26, 2013 decision.

The article discusses the future of litigation challenging the U.S. government's foreign surveillance practices following the Supreme Court ruling about establishing standing in the Clapper v. Amnesty International case in February 2013. It notes that recent media accounts and the government's acknowledgement of a vast surveillance program have resurrected the Clapper-like challenges to government surveillance. It details arguments by plaintiffs in ACLU, Klayman and EPIC cases.

The article presents the U.S. Congressional Service report "Foreign Surveillance and the Future of Standing to Sue Post-Clapper" dated July 10, 2013. It discusses the future of litigation following the controversy started by media exposure of the government's surveillance program and practices as well as the Supreme Court decision on the Clapper versus Amnesty International case. It offers a background on the doctrines of constitutional and prudential standing and details of the Clapper case.

An introduction to the U.S. Congressional Service report "Foreign Surveillance and the Future of Standing to Sue Post-Clapper" dated July 10, 2013 is presented. It notes that the alleged massive government data gathering program involving phone usage, emails and live chats from service providers has sparked outrage in some quarters, with some actually filing lawsuits. It assesses how the Supreme Court's discussion of standing in Clapper versus Amnesty International may affect such litigation.

The article discusses four notable cases that the Supreme Court ruled during the October 2016 term which include Matal v. Tam; Sessions v. Morales-Santana; Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer and Ziglar v. Abbasi. It is noted each case provides background information on the case; summarizes arguments presented to the Court; explains ultimate ruling of Court and examines potential implications that the Court's ruling could have for Congress.

The article offers a background on the doctrines of constitutional and prudential standing which derives from the text of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It claims that a plaintiff must establish standing to prosecute the action in federal court. It cites elements of constitutional standing like the rule that the plaintiff must have suffered an injury, and the principles of the prudential standing doctrine like the prohibition that one litigant can not raise another person's legal rights.