Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Established on December 10, 1869 by the Judiciary Act of 1869 as a circuit judgeship for the Sixth Circuit Reassigned to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by the Judiciary Act of 1891: Jackson: TN: 1891–1893 Lurton: TN: 1893–1909 Knappen: MI: 1910–1924 Moorman: KY: 1925–1938 Hamilton: KY: 1938–1945 S ...
Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 21-3886 (2023), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on a challenge by Consumers' Research, a free-market advocacy organization, against the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund program.
Tennessee v. Federal Communications Commission, 832 F.3d 597 (2016), was a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, [1] holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the authority to preempt states from enforcing "anti-expansion" statutes that prohibit local municipal broadband networks from being expanded into nearby communities.
A new opinion from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has potentially given the victims from the 2016 Gatlinburg wildfire a new way to sue the federal government over how it handled the blaze.
Circuit Judge Amul Thapar wrote the opinion of the panel. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed Polster's ruling in April 2022. [6] Thapar, again writing for the panel, expressed the court's "doubts" about the decision to prosecute Novak, but agreed that the city and officers had qualified immunity. [14]
After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some ...
In March 2018, the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision, ruling that Title VII's "discrimination by sex" does include transgender persons. [8] The court also considered that the funeral home had failed to show how the Civil Rights Act burdened Rost from expressing his religious freedom. [9] Part of the Sixth's decision rested on the 1989 case ...
Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.