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
This transformed the article IV United States territorial court in Puerto Rico, created in 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court. The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 , frequently called the court-packing plan , [ 6 ] was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by President Franklin D ...
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 ]
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution. It is "one of the most influential cases in modern environmental standing jurisprudence."
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited ...
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 ...
(3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA. June 24, 2024: December 3, 2024 Riley v. Garland: 23-1270