DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ This Supreme Court is slow to issue rulings — glacially slow
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-30 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +6 min

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 19: The Supreme Court of the United States, on Wednesday, April 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)WASHINGTON — Back in 1923, the Supreme Court had issued 157 rulings by May 1 in a term that started the previous fall. Nevertheless, the slow pace at which rulings have been issued this term has started to attract scrutiny from court watchers. In both 2022 and 2021, the court had decided 25 cases by May 1, according to Feldman. Court experts differed on whether the crunch would have any impact on how the court actually decides cases.

☆ Supreme Court takes up legal spat over public officials blocking people on social media
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-24 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +4 min

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 19: The Supreme Court of the United States, on Wednesday, April 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. But the legal dispute is the same: Can blocking someone on social media give rise to a free speech violation under the Constitution's First Amendment? It's a recurring question that has arisen at all levels of government as elected officials increasingly use social media to interact with voters. The appeals court concluded that the elected officials were acting in their official capacities and that social media accounts are akin to a public forum. The court also rejected the officials' argument that their social media pages were not official channels for members of the public to communicate with the government.

☆ Supreme Court deals blow to oil companies by turning away climate cases
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-24 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed lawsuits brought by municipalities seeking to hold energy companies accountable for climate change to move forward in a loss for business interests. The relatively narrow legal issue is whether the lawsuits should be heard in state court instead of federal court. Litigants care because of the widely held view that plaintiffs have a better chance of winning damage awards in state court. The municipalities' lawsuits say they have been harmed by the affects of climate change caused by carbon emissions that the oil companies are heavily responsible for. In an earlier case, the Supreme Court in 2021 ruled in favor of oil companies on a procedural issue in a similar lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore.

☆ Appeals court partially blocks ruling that imperils access to key abortion pill
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-13 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | Laura Jarrett | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +6 min

A federal appeals court late on Wednesday blocked part of a ruling issued last week by a Trump-appointed judge that endangers access to the abortion pill mifepristone. The Justice Department can still ask the Supreme Court to intervene in an attempt to completely block Kacsmaryk's ruling. The Justice Department has filed a motion in the federal district court in Washington state, asking for clarification on Friday's ruling. Kacsmaryk's ruling, if allowed to stand, would not mean that access to mifepristone would immediately be cut off nationwide. The agency has broad power to do so, with the Supreme Court in a 1985 ruling saying that such decisions generally cannot be challenged in court.

☆ Colleges ask Supreme Court to halt $6B student loan debt settlement
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-05 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +3 min

People rally in support of the Biden administration's student debt relief plan in front of the the U.S. Supreme Court on February 28, 2023 in Washington, DC. Colleges challenging a class-action settlement that could lead to student loans being canceled for hundreds of thousands of borrowers on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to put the case on hold. The application at the Supreme Court was filed by Everglades College, Lincoln Educational Services Corporation and American National University. They asked the Supreme Court to put Alsup's ruling on hold and consider hearing the case on an accelerated basis. In the separates cases involving Biden's debt relief plan, the Supreme Court in February appeared skeptical that it was lawful.

☆ Supreme Court signals it could sidestep ruling in major elections case
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-02 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +3 min

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sought additional briefings in a major elections case from North Carolina, signaling it could sidestep a ruling on a broad theory that could upend election law nationwide. The brief court order asked the parties involved to file new court papers on the impact of recent actions by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The case before the justices, argued in December, concerns whether the North Carolina Supreme Court had the authority last year to throw out Republican-drawn congressional districts. Since then, the North Carolina Supreme Court has flipped from Democratic to Republican control and the new majority has moved to revisit some of the earlier rulings. Oral arguments in the North Carolina court are scheduled for March 14.

☆ Biden and Republican senators join forces in attack on Big Tech at Supreme Court
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-18 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | David Ingram | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +7 min

A person walks in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building during rainy weather, in Washington, U.S. January 17, 2023. WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and some of his most prominent Republican adversaries in Congress have become allies, of sorts, in an upcoming Supreme Court showdown between Big Tech and its critics. Biden took a shot at tech companies in his State of the Union address earlier this month, although he did not mention Section 230. "I think this is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to disentangle some of the knots that the courts themselves have woven here into the law," he said in an interview. "The rhetoric is that these are bad powerful tech companies that are harming ordinary people and causing a lot of harm and injustice," Rathi said.

WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court is not as divided as members of the public might think, praising his liberal colleagues and highlighting rulings in which the justices were not divided on ideological lines during a recent public appearance. Kavanaugh had special praise for the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer and Breyer’s successor, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying she “has hit the ground running" and is "thoroughly prepared." Ginsburg and Breyer "couldn't have been better at welcoming me to the court," Kavanaugh said, referring to his nomination by then-President Donald Trump in 2018. Kavanaugh this week appeared eager to counter any perceptions that the court is usually divided on ideological lines, pointing out several cases in which he had joined liberal justices in 5-4 decisions. Statistics compiled for the SCOTUSblog legal website showed, however, that in the previous court term only 29 percent of the decisions were unanimous, lower than at any time in the past two decades.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday belatedly issued the first ruling of its nine-month term that started in October, more than a month behind its normal schedule. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court's first opinion, with the justices ruling unanimously against Navy veteran Adolfo Arellano in a technical dispute over disability benefits. The court dismissed a second case concerning the scope of attorney-client privilege without issuing a written ruling. With the court term running from October to June, the first opinions are usually released in November or December. Adam Feldman, who tracks Supreme Court statistics, found that this term is the first since 1917 that the court had not released a ruling by the beginning of December.

☆ Protesting against Congress may get you a $50 fine. Disrupting the Supreme Court is a different story.
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-22 | by ( Https | Media-Cldnry.S-Nbcnews.Com Image Upload Newscms Lawrencehurley_Pic.Jpg | Lawrence Hurley | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +3 min

WASHINGTON — When Emily Paterson was arrested for protesting abortion law changes during a Supreme Court hearing in November, she spent the night in jail and now has a criminal conviction on her record. It’s a sore point for Mark Goldstone, a lawyer who regularly represents Washington protesters. Supreme Court protesters are treated “more harshly” in a couple of different ways, he said, referring only to those participating in nonviolent protests and not violent attacks like the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. On Capitol grounds, the police “process you and release you,” Goldstone said, while at the Supreme Court, “you are going to spend the night in jail" and likely face prosecution. Participants have long complained that the right to protest outside the court is limited, pointing out the irony of the Supreme Court imposing its own limits on the right to free speech.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices spoke with the official in charge of the investigation into the leak of an unpublished draft of an opinion in a consequential abortion case, a court official confirmed Friday. Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley, who led the probe, said in a statement that she "spoke with each of the justices, several on multiple occasions." The justices "actively cooperated," Curley said, and after following up on all leads she concluded that neither the justices nor any spouses were implicated. "On this basis I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the justices to sign sworn affidavits," Curley added. The lack of signed affidavits suggests that the justices were not formally interviewed in the same way as court staff.

The justices will weigh a claim brought by Geraldine Tyler, a 93-year-old whose property in Minnesota was seized by Hennepin County because she owed $15,000 in property taxes and related costs. The state says that under Minnesota law it “provides ample opportunity for property owners to protect their interests” before a property is seized. The state’s lawyers point out that owners have three years to pay the taxes and have an opportunity to repurchase the seized property. The case was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group that often brings property rights cases. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is often sympathetic to property rights claims.

☆ Supreme Court takes up convicted stalker’s plea to decide what constitutes a 'true threat'
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-13 | by ( Https | Media-Cldnry.S-Nbcnews.Com Image Upload Newscms Lawrencehurley_Pic.Jpg | Lawrence Hurley | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +2 min

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide what kind of conduct constitutes a “true threat” that can be prosecuted as a criminal offense in a case brought by a Colorado man who repeatedly sent abusive messages to a local musician. If such messages are not true threats, they are deemed protected speech under the Constitution's First Amendment. Counterman's lawyers are asking the court to limit the definition of a true threat to situations in which the defendant intended to threaten the person. In Counterman’s case, prosecutors focused on messages he sent to Whalen on Facebook for two years starting in 2014. The conviction was upheld on appeal, prompting him to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an evangelical Christian mail carrier's employment discrimination claim in a case that could force employers to do more to accommodate the religious practices of their workers. Postal Service could have granted his request that he be spared Sunday shifts based on his religious belief that it is a day of worship and rest. Based on his request for an accommodation, his managers arranged for other postal workers to deliver packages on Sundays until July 2018. Upon resigning, he sued the Postal Service for failing to accommodate his request. In the earlier ruling, the court said that employers are not required to make accommodation if it would impose even a minimal burden.

☆ Supreme Court allows New York gun law to remain in effect
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-11 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

Supporters of gun control and firearm safety measures hold a protest rally outside the US Supreme Court as the Court hears oral arguments in State Rifle and Pistol v. City of New York, NY, in Washington, DC, December 2, 2019. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a New York gun control law that was enacted in the wake of the high court's landmark ruling in June that dramatically expanded the right to bear arms outside the home to remain in effect while a legal challenge against it continues. The challenge was brought by Ivan Antonyuk and five other individuals who say they would like to carry firearms outside the home. Various gun owners have challenged provisions of the law, with three federal district courts ruling in favor of plaintiffs In each case, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to remain in place in full pending appeals.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday hears a dispute between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and a concrete company in Washington state that labor advocates say could weaken workers’ rights if the ruling goes against the union. The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action in which it says that concrete was lost when drivers walked off the job. Business interests that are often in conflict with organized labor have in the past been heavily critical of the labor board. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled against unions in several high-profile cases in recent years. As a result of the strike, concrete hardened in the trucks and had to be broken up before it could be removed, the company says.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday revived a Texas death row inmate’s claim that his murder conviction should be tossed out on the grounds that DNA evidence used at trial was later found to be unreliable. In a rare move, prosecutors had agreed that the evidence was faulty and there should be a new trial. The Supreme Court sent the case back to an appeals court in Texas "for further consideration in light of the confession of error by Texas," the brief order said. Prosecutors accepted that finding and notified the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which was reviewing the case. At the Supreme Court, Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza, representing the state, urged the justices to rule in Escobar’s favor.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Meta to pursue a lawsuit alleging that an Israeli company unlawfully accessed WhatsApp servers when installing spyware on users’ devices. The lawsuit, filed in October 2019, alleges that NSO violated various laws, including the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, when it installed the “Pegasus” spyware. Meta claims that NSO unlawfully accessed WhatsApp servers earlier in 2019, enabling it to conduct surveillance of 1,400 people, including journalists and human rights activists. “Some WhatsApp users are violent criminals and terrorists who exploit the software’s encryption to avoid detection,” the company’s lawyers wrote. In fact, she noted, no foreign government has told the State Department that NSO was acting on its behalf.

Both would be setbacks for the Biden administration. In another immigration-related case, the court has yet to rule on the Biden administration’s attempt to implement its immigration enforcement priorities. For Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top advocate at the court, arguing before such a conservative court is a constant uphill battle. The government similarly failed to convince the conservative majority not to expand gun rights in another major ruling issued that month. The Biden administration can point to some hard-fought victories.

☆ Supreme Court keeps in place Trump-era immigration policy allowing asylum-seekers to be quickly turned away
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-27 | by ( Https | Media-Cldnry.S-Nbcnews.Com Image Upload Newscms Lawrencehurley_Pic.Jpg | Lawrence Hurley | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +5 min

The court voted 5-4 to grant an emergency request by 19 Republican state attorneys general who sought to intervene in defense of the policy. The brief court order said that while the administration cannot set aside the Title 42 policy, the decision "does not prevent the federal government from taking any action with respect to that policy." Gavin Newsom, has warned that the system for handling migrants seeking asylum would “break” if Title 42 is ended. Chief Justice John Roberts on Dec. 19 placed a temporary hold on Sullivan’s ruling while the Supreme Court weighed its next steps. Title 42, named after a section of U.S. law, gives the federal government power to take emergency action to keep diseases out of the country.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday placed a temporary hold on a lower court ruling that would end a Trump-era immigration policy implemented during the pandemic to allow asylum-seekers to be quickly turned away at the border. The brief order came after Republican-led states asked the Supreme Court to keep the policy in place. Roberts ordered that the federal district court ruling, which was due to go into effect on Wednesday, be put on hold until the Supreme Court acts. He asked the Biden administration and groups challenging the policy to file a response to the states' request by Tuesday afternoon. The appeals court said in its order last week that the states had waited too long before attempting to intervene.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a second bid to revive President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, which will be heard in February alongside a case the justices have already agreed to hear. In both the cases, lower courts blocked the plan, meaning the Supreme Court will have the final say on whether it ever goes into effect. The case the court said Monday that it would take up involves two holders of student loan debt, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who claimed the administration had failed to follow the correct procedure in announcing the plan. A federal judge in Texas invalided it nationwide, prompting the administration to turn to the Supreme Court. In the other case, the court on Dec. 1 said it would hear an administration appeal involving a challenge brought by six states.

The appeals court had given Trump until Thursday to appeal to the full 11th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court and try to get a stay before the order took effect. After the FBI executed its Mar-a-Lago search warrant, a top Trump adviser familiar with his legal strategy told NBC News that the former president would probably “appeal everything to the Supreme Court. It also barred the special master from reviewing those documents, a decision that Trump appealed to the Supreme Court in October and lost. Under federal law, official White House papers are federal property and must be handed over to the National Archives when a president leaves office. The most recent defeat came last month, when the court allowed Trump's tax returns to be disclosed to a Democratic-led House committee.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a major case that could upend election law as the justices consider whether to reinstate Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina. The case, which could have a broad impact on an array of election issues, is being closely watched for its potential impact on the 2024 presidential election. Republicans led by Tim Moore, the Republican speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, invoked the theory after the state Supreme Court in February struck down the congressional district map. Activists protest partisan gerrymandering at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on Mar. Moore and other Republicans immediately asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the maps, saying the state court had overstepped its authority.

But first: The results from five counties will help tell us if Democrat Raphael Warnock is on track to win tonight’s Senate runoff in Georgia. Warnock got 56.9% of the vote in Cobb when he won the Jan. 2021 runoff, and he got just under that last November (56.8%). And in Gwinnett, Warnock got 60.6% of the vote in the 2021 runoff, compared with 58.9% last month against Walker. In rural Chattooga — one of NBC News’ “County to County” counties — Warnock got just 20.5% when he won the 2021 runoff, and he got less than that in the November general election (19.8%). Data Download: The number of the day is … $7.79 billionThat’s how much money was spent on political television, radio and digital ads this entire cycle (starting the day after the 2021 Georgia Senate runoff through today’s runoff), per AdImpact.

Search resuls for: "Lawrence Hurley"

25 mentions found