DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

The justices in a second ruling shielded Twitter Inc from litigation seeking to apply a federal law called the Anti-Terrorism Act. This case marked the first time the Supreme Court had examined Section 230's reach. Many conservatives have said voices on the right are censored by social media companies under the guise of content moderation. Gonzalez's family argued that YouTube provided unlawful assistance to the Islamic State by recommending the militant group's content to users. In the Twitter case, the 9th Circuit did not consider whether Section 230 barred the family's lawsuit.

The court in a separate case involving Google LLC sidestepped a bid to weaken legal protections for internet firms. In the Twitter case, the 9th Circuit did not consider whether Section 230 barred the family's lawsuit. Islamic State called the Istanbul attack revenge for Turkish military involvement in Syria. Twitter in court papers has said that it has terminated more than 1.7 million accounts for violating rules against "threatening or promoting terrorism." The family had argued that YouTube provided unlawful assistance to the Islamic State, which claimed responsibility for the attack, by recommending the militant group's content to users.

WASHINGTON, May 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against Amgen Inc (AMGN.O) in its bid to revive patents on its cholesterol-lowering drug Repatha over a legal challenge by French rival Sanofi SA (SASY.PA). Amgen sought to patent a group of antibodies that help reduce so-called "bad" cholesterol. In 2014, Amgen sued Sanofi and Regeneron for patent infringement over their rival drug Praluent, which works by a similar mechanism as Repatha. The justices said that Supreme Court precedent weighed against Amgen. President Joe Biden's administration, arguing in support of Sanofi, told the justices that Amgen had not disclosed the information needed to make to make its patents valid.

That case involved a lawsuit by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old college student from California who was fatally shot in an Islamic State attack in Paris in 2015, of a lower court's decision to throw out their lawsuit. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 allowed it to proceed, concluding that Twitter had refused to take "meaningful steps" to prevent Islamic State's use of the platform. In the Twitter case, the 9th Circuit did not consider whether Section 230 barred the family's lawsuit. Islamic State called the Istanbul attack revenge for Turkish military involvement in Syria. Twitter in court papers has said that it has terminated more than 1.7 million accounts for violating rules against "threatening or promoting terrorism."

Companies Google Inc FollowAlphabet Inc FollowMay 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a challenge to federal protections for internet and social media companies that free them of liability for content posted by users in a case involving a lawsuit against Google LLC involving the practices of video-sharing platform YouTube. The justices, in a brief and unsigned ruling, returned to a lower court a lawsuit by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old college student from California who was fatally shot in an Islamic State attack in Paris in 2015, of a lower court's decision to throw out their lawsuit. Google and YouTube are part of Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O). Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will DunhamOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

☆ U.S. Supreme Court dismisses dispute over Title 42 border expulsions
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-18 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: 1 min

[1/2] Migrants stand near the border wall after having crossed the U.S.-Mexico border to turn themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol agents, after the lifting of COVID-19 era Title 42 restrictions that have... Read moreMay 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a case in which Republicans sought to keep in place a policy introduced under former President Donald Trump that had let American officials quickly expel hundreds of thousands of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. The now-expired policy, known as Title 42, was implemented by Trump's administration in March 2020 - early in the COVID-19 pandemic - as a measure tied to a public health emergency. The court had canceled arguments in the case in February. Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will DunhamOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The law exempts existing owners, giving them a deadline of Jan. 1, 2024, to register their assault weapons with state police. The case is one of several contesting the state's ban in both federal and state courts. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has expanded gun rights in key rulings since 2008. In a landmark decision last June striking down New York state gun limits, the Supreme Court recognized the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In asking the Supreme Court to halt the ban, the challengers said AR-15s and similar rifles are in common use in the United States and there is no historical analogue to such a ban.

The opulent hotel with a soaring clock tower, located on Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the U.S. Capitol, opened shortly before Trump was elected in 2016. The hotel became a gathering spot for Trump supporters, lobbyists and foreign dignitaries, who Democrats and watchdog groups complained could patronize the hotel in order to curry favor with Trump when he was in office. Lawsuits accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution's anti-corruption provisions by maintaining ownership of his businesses including the Washington hotel while in office. The justices ordered those cases dismissed because they became moot with Trump leaving office in 2021 after his election loss to Biden, a Democrat. Some of the lawmakers who sued are no longer part of the committee while some others are no longer in Congress.

☆ U.S. Supreme Court allows death row inmate's lawsuit after failed execution
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-15 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +4 min

A majority of the justices in November cleared the way for the execution of Smith, sentenced to death for his role in a 1988 murder-for-hire plot. The method in Alabama posed an "intolerable risk of torture, cruelty or substantial pain," Smith's lawsuit stated. A judge dismissed Smith's lawsuit, but on Nov. 17, the day of his scheduled execution, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. The 11th Circuit also in a separate decision stayed his execution, but after the state appealed to the Supreme Court, the justices allowed it to proceed. Smith's case is not a challenge to the death penalty itself.

Critics have said such awards encourage frivolous lawsuits and excessive fees going to class action attorneys who may seek to benefit their own interests instead. The Supreme Court in 2019 sidestepped resolving a challenge to cy pres awards in a case involving Google. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting in that case, called cy pres settlements "unfair and unreasonable." Monsanto has called the group, which advocates against what it considers abusive class action procedures, a "serial objector to class-action settlements." The group said in court papers that further steps could have taken to distribute the settlement award to class members.

Companies United States Senate FollowWASHINGTON, May 2 (Reuters) - Ethics concerns relating to U.S. Supreme Court justices are set to be scrutinized on Tuesday by a Senate panel during a hearing called amid revelations about luxury trips and real estate transactions involving members of the nation's top judicial body. "Supreme Court ethics reform must happen whether the court participates in the process or not," Durbin said in a statement responding to the decision by Roberts not to appear. "It is time for Congress to accept its responsibility to establish an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, the only agency of our government without it." Roberts has said Supreme Court justices consult that code in assessing their own ethical obligations. In a letter to Durbin declining to testify, Roberts attached a "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices" to which the justices adhere.

May 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to the legality of an Indiana requirement that abortion providers bury or cremate embryonic or fetal remains following the procedure, sidestepping another dispute involving a contentious Republican-backed state policy concerning abortion. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the state's requirement after a federal judge had invalidated it. Indiana's ban is currently blocked after decisions by lower court judges. The Supreme Court on April 21 blocked restrictions set by lower courts on a widely used abortion pill while litigation continues in lower courts in a challenge by abortion opponents to the drug's federal regulatory approval. Women themselves "may choose to take custody of the remains and dispose of them as they please," that court added.

The dispute concerns Minnesota's tax regime under which the state takes "absolute title" of a property if an owner fails to pay property taxes for five years. Tyler's attorneys said in a court filing that 13 other states have similar policies that let government or private investors benefit when collecting delinquent property taxes. She owed $15,000, including roughly $2,300 in property taxes, as well as penalties, interests and costs. States have long permitted forfeitures of an entire property for neglecting to pay taxes, which are a reasonable condition of property ownership, the county said. Rulings in this case and any others not yet decided by the Supreme Court are due by the end of June.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to act before the deadline to either grant or reject the requests or further pause the litigation. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. agency that signs off on the safety of food products, drugs and medical devices, approved mifepristone in 2000. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 12 declined to block the curbs ordered by Kacsmaryk. Anti-abortion groups led by the recently formed Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four anti-abortion doctors sued the FDA in November. The plaintiffs contend that the agency used an unlawful process to approve the drug, which they consider to be dangerous.

WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday bolstered a bid by Turkey's state-owned lender Halkbank (HALKB.IS) to avoid criminal charges in the United States for allegedly helping Iran evade American economic sanctions. The court's majority, while rejecting a key defense mounted by Halkbank, ordered the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Shares in Vakifbank (VAKBN.IS), another Turkish state bank, jumped 9.9% and the bourse's banking index climbed more than 4%. Sovereign immunity generally protects countries from facing legal action in another country's courts. The majority found that the 2nd Circuit did not fully consider whether the bank has immunity under "common law" principles.

☆ US Supreme Court faces self-imposed deadline to act on abortion pill curbs
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-19 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +3 min

WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday faces a self-imposed deadline to act before significant limits on access to the abortion pill mifepristone take effect in a challenge by anti-abortion groups to the drug's federal regulatory approval. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to act before the deadline to either grant or reject the requests or further pause the litigation. In a case that could undercut federal regulatory authority over drug safety, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. The 5th Circuit did halt a part of Kacsmaryk's order that would have suspended the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in 2000 and effectively pull it off the market. Some 56% of respondents said they have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court.

☆ Anti-abortion groups urge US Supreme Court to restrict abortion pill
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-18 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +4 min

WASHINGTON, April 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court should restrict the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone, anti-abortion groups challenging the medication's federal regulatory approval told the justices in a filing on Tuesday, urging them to implement curbs ordered by a conservative federal judge in Texas. Mifepristone is taken with another drug called misoprostol to perform medication abortion, which now accounts for more than half of all U.S. abortions. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Anti-abortion groups led by the recently formed Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four anti-abortion doctors sued the FDA in November seeking to reverse approval of mifepristone. Since last year's Supreme Court decision, 12 U.S. states have put in place outright bans while many others prohibit abortion after a certain length of pregnancy.

Postal Service for alleged religious discrimination is set for U.S. Supreme Court review on April 18, poses in an undated handout image taken at an unknown location. Postal Service over his refusal to work on Sundays gives the Supreme Court another chance to widen religious rights but also has led to a debate over whether religious people are more legally deserving than others to weekend days off from work. The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has a track record of expanding religious rights in recent years, often siding with Christian plaintiffs. The Postal Service in 2013, in a bid to remain profitable, contracted with Amazon.com to deliver packages, including on Sundays. His absences caused tension among other carriers who had to cover his shifts, the Postal Service said.

[1/2] The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., April 6, 2023. Two laws, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Securities Exchange Act, funnel judicial review of adverse agency orders to federal appeals courts only after those orders become final. The Supreme Court's conservative justices have signaled wariness toward expansive federal regulatory power and the previously recognized duty of judges, under Supreme Court precedent, to give deference to that authority. Federal agencies have had their powers curtailed in recent Supreme Court rulings. Axon sued the FTC in 2020 in federal court in Arizona following an investigation by the agency into its 2018 acquisition of Vievu, a rival body-camera provider.

☆ Biden administration asks US Supreme Court to stop abortion pill limits
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-14 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +5 min

Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, also asked the U.S. Supreme Court for similar relief on Friday. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The administration said the lower court orders would have "sweeping consequences" for women who need access to mifepristone and the FDA's scientific judgment authority over drug safety. "The resulting disruption would deny women lawful access to a drug FDA deemed a safe and effective alternative to invasive surgical abortion," the Justice Department told the justices. Since last year's Supreme Court decision, 12 U.S. states have put in place outright bans while many others prohibit abortion after a certain length of pregnancy.

"Bump stocks allow a shooter to fire hundreds of bullets a minute by a single pull of the trigger. Like other machine guns, rifles modified with bump stocks are exceedingly dangerous." Bump stocks use a semiautomatic's recoil to allow it to slide back and forth while "bumping" the shooter's trigger finger, resulting in rapid fire. Cargill sued, challenging the ATF's rule in 2019, which required him to surrender his two bump stocks. Two days after that ruling, Biden signed into law the first major federal gun reform in three decades.

The news outlet said the frequency of the gifts have "no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court." Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "This cries out for the kind of independent investigation that the Supreme Court — and only the Supreme Court, across the entire government — refuses to perform," Whitehouse said on Twitter. The ProPublica report is the latest revelation to prompt ethics concerns about Thomas. Thomas's failure to report the trips provided by Crow appears to violate a federal law requiring justices, judges and other federal officials disclose most gifts, ProPublica reported, citing legal ethics experts.

April 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday refused to let West Virginia enforce a state law banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, one of many Republican-backed measures across the country targeting LGBTQ rights. The justices denied West Virginia's request to lift an injunction against the law that a lower court had imposed while litigation continues over its legality in a challenge brought by a 12-year-old transgender girl, Becky Pepper-Jackson. West Virginia said in a court filing that it can lawfully assign athletic teams by sex rather than gender identity "where biological differences between males and females are the very reason those separate teams exist." Pepper-Jackson, who attends a middle school in the West Virginia city of Bridgeport, sued after being prohibited from trying out for the girls' cross-country and track teams. Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Sandra MalerOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

WASHINGTON, March 27 (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared inclined to uphold a federal law that made it a crime to encourage illegal immigration, signaling agreement with President Joe Biden's administration that the measure does not violate constitutional free speech protections. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Hansen's conviction for violating the provision, which bars inducing or encouraging noncitizens "to come to, enter or reside" in the United States illegally, including for financial gain. The 9th Circuit upheld Hansen's convictions on mail and wire fraud charges. The 9th Circuit decision applies in the group of western states over which it has jurisdiction including Arizona and California, which border Mexico. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction of a group of other states, also ruled against the law in a separate case.

The 9th Circuit upheld Hansen's other convictions and ordered that he be resentenced. The 9th Circuit decision applies in the group of western states over which it has jurisdiction including Arizona and California, which border Mexico. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against the law in a separate case. The Justice Department told the justices that the 9th Circuit decision wrongly relied on "hypothetical scenarios that the statute would not encompass." These groups argued that the law threatens attorneys, doctors, scholars and anyone else who speaks in support of immigration.

Search resuls for: "Andrew Chung"

25 mentions found