Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under ...
Harvard filed an opposing brief seeking to have SFFA's petition rejected by the Supreme Court. [48] [49] In June 2021 the Court requested that the U.S. government submit a brief of its stance on the case, [50] and in December the Solicitor General of the United States under the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal. [51]
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.
The Supreme Court ruled in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), that courts must defer to the authority of an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute whenever both the intent of Congress was ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable or permissible.
“Our brief urges the Supreme Court to uphold SB8 and provide clarity to states that, like Louisiana, are forced into endless litigation every time a new census requires redistricting,” Murrill ...
Some of the scientific evidence detailed in the Brandeis brief was later challenged and refuted. [8] But it still is regarded as a pioneering attempt to combine law and social science. [9] The Brandeis brief changed the direction of the Supreme Court and of U.S. law. It is considered a model for future Supreme Court presentations in cases ...
[20] [22] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 24, 2024. [23] Whereas the government's petition alleged a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the plaintiffs filed a separate petition for certiorari, which the court did not grant, which additionally presented the theory that the bill violated the Due Process Clause by denying ...
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), commonly known in U.S. administrative law as State Farm, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning regulations requiring passive restraints in cars.