Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government welfare benefits can be deprived of such benefits.
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. [1]
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), is a landmark decision [1] of the United States Supreme Court in the field of administrative law, the law governing regulatory agencies.
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing ...
In administrative law, rulemaking is the process that executive and independent agencies use to create, or promulgate, regulations.In general, legislatures first set broad policy mandates by passing statutes, then agencies create more detailed regulations through rulemaking.
Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Department of Health and Human Services' new policy to retroactively reduce Medicare payments must be vacated due to the department's failure to uphold its notice-and-comment obligations.
If the appellate court finds no defect, it "affirms" the judgment. If the appellate court does find a legal defect in the decision "below" (i.e., in the lower court), it may "modify" the ruling to correct the defect, or it may nullify ("reverse" or "vacate") the whole decision or any part of it.
The ruling did not specify which actions the government needed to take to resolve the conflict with the constitution (e.g., whether to abolish the draft registration requirement or apply it in a gender-neutral manner). [1] That ruling was reversed by the Fifth Circuit.