Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not create Article III standing: 9–0 Murthy v. Missouri: 2024: States and individual social-media users have no Article III standing to enjoin Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging social-media platforms to suppress protected speech in the future. 6-3
The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. [ 39 ] Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity". [ 39 ]
Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan who are guaranteed a fixed payment each month regardless of the plan’s value or its fiduciaries' investment decisions lack Article III standing to bring a lawsuit against the fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income ...
Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. SEC v. Jarkesy: 22–859: June 27, 2024: When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. 23 ...
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to ...
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. § 1881a), as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.
Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone address the question of how, if at all, a non-injured party that challenges a patent before the PTAB and loses may ...
(1) Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; and (2) Whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) , or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act ; and