DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Thousands of student-loan borrowers are facing 'obvious harm' if the Supreme Court agrees to halt the debt relief they already won in court, Biden's Education Department says
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-12 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

The Education Department pushed back on a lawsuit to halt student-debt relief for borrowers who said they were defrauded. A federal judge signed off on a settlement that would give those borrowers $6 billion in debt relief. The Education Department agreed to the settlement last summer, and in November, a federal judge signed off on $6 billion in debt relief for 200,000 borrowers. On Wednesday, the Education Department responded to the schools' appeal, and as expected, it told the Supreme Court that staying the relief will cause "obvious harm" for impacted borrowers and the department itself. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case aiming to block that broader relief in February.

☆ Thomas revelation fits a broader pattern of nondisclosure
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-12 | by ( Joan Biskupic | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +7 min

Washington CNN —The recent revelations of lavish gifts and travel that a Republican megadonor showered on Justice Clarence Thomas reflect a larger Supreme Court culture of nondisclosure, little explanation, and no comment. The incident reflects the broader lack of accountability at the high court regarding off-bench behavior. Justices regularly brush aside reporters’ queries for specifics on travel and gifts, book advances and other extracurricular activities. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin made another such plea to Roberts this week as he also urged the chief justice to open an investigation into Thomas’ conduct. Chief justice on the spotRoberts, who became chief justice in 2005, has continually described the high court as beyond the realm of politics and worthy of public trust.

☆ 20 GOP-led states are asking the Supreme Court to halt Biden's latest student-debt cancellation for 200,000 borrowers, backing a request from 3 schools accused of defrauding their students
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-11 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

A federal judge ruled that 200,000 borrowers can move forward with relief in a borrower defense settlement. Last month, three schools mentioned in the settlement appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 20 GOP-led states filed an amicus brief supporting the schools, arguing Biden doesn't have authority to carry out this relief. Unlawful delay of debt relief results in clear monetary harm." The Education Department has until Wednesday to file a response to the three schools' lawsuit, which currently sits with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

Jack Daniel's Properties Inc is owned by Louisville, Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp (BFb.N). "I'm concerned about the First Amendment implications of your position," conservative Justice Samuel Alito told an attorney for Jack Daniel's, referring to the constitutional provision enshrining free-speech protections. "Could any reasonable person think that Jack Daniel's had approved this use of the mark?" Jack Daniel's also contested a finding by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. "This is a standard commercial product," Kagan told a lawyer for VIP Products, Bennett Cooper.

☆ The Supreme Court justices deciding whether to axe Biden's student loan relief program paid an average of $42,539 to go to college. Today, they'd have to pay around $320,531.
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-01 | by ( Sarah Al-Arshani | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +8 min

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Biden's student debt relief on Tuesday. The cost of getting an undergraduate degree was significantly cheaper when they graduated than now. When Roberts graduated in 1979, it cost $21,400; in 1992 when Jackson earned her undergraduate degree, it would have cost $75,360. When Roberts graduated in 1979, it cost $21,400; in 1992 when Jackson earned her undergraduate degree, it would have cost $75,360. Student loan borrowers gathered at the Supreme Court today to tell the court that student loan relief is legal on January 2, 2023.

☆ Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan is in jeopardy. Here are 4 major takeaways from the Supreme Court's oral arguments.
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +11 min

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Biden's student-debt relief on Tuesday. The nation's highest court heard more than four hours of oral arguments in two high-profile cases that reviewed Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in debt for federal borrowers, which lower courts temporarily paused in November. "We're talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans," Chief Justice John Roberts said, referring to the estimated costs of Biden's plan and the number of affected borrowers. Justice Elena Kagan raised a hypothetical national emergency of an earthquake and the education secretary responded by deciding to cancel student loans for those harmed. Still, even if Barrett and the court's three liberals find that the states and borrowers lack standing, they would need another conservative vote to uphold Biden's debt relief.

☆ How the Supreme Court could re-shape the internet as you know it
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-24 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +11 min

Nearly 30 years of protectionsA view of the U.S. Supreme Court on February 21, 2023 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court isn't the only one reviewing Section 230; Congress and the White House have also proposed changes to the law, though legislation to update Section 230 has consistently stalled. For skeptics of the tech industry, and critics of social media platforms, more lawsuits would imply more opportunities to hold tech companies accountable. Allowing the courts to scrutinize the tech industry more would bring it in line with other industries, some have argued. Even a 'like' could trigger a lawsuitLiability could also extend to individual internet users.

☆ Supreme Court Sides With Employee in Overtime Case
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-23 | by ( Jess Bravin | ) www.wsj.com time to read: 1 min

The oil-rig supervisor sued Helix Energy Solutions Group, which runs an offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico. WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to narrow eligibility for overtime pay, ruling 6-3 that an oil-rig supervisor making $200,000 a year qualified because he was paid by the day rather than receiving a fixed salary. “Employees are not ‘deprived of the benefits of [overtime compensation] simply because they are well paid,’” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, citing a 1945 precedent involving mine workers. Besides, she added, nurses and many other workers making far less than those in the petroleum industry could lose overtime if the court ruled against Michael J. Hewitt, the “tool-pusher” who sued for back pay from Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc.

The court in a 6-3 decision authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan decided that because the rig supervisor, Michael Hewitt, was paid a daily rate of $963 and not a salary, an overtime pay exemption in federal wage law for highly paid workers did not apply to him. Circuit Court of Appeals that Helix must face Hewitt's 2017 lawsuit seeking overtime pay. A ruling favoring Hewitt would require companies to pay overtime premiums and invite a flood of lawsuits from highly paid workers, the groups added. That coupled with his management duties made him exempt from overtime pay, Kavanaugh said. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch in a separate dissent said Helix's appeal should have been dismissed for procedural reasons.

[1/2] Television equipment is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court as Justices hear oral arguments on Twitter's appeal to an anti-terror law violation, in Washington, U.S., February 22, 2023. Both lawsuits were brought under a U.S. law that enables Americans to recover damages related to "an act of international terrorism." Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said the statute focuses liability on aiding a person who engaged in a terrorist act. Islamic State called the attack revenge for Turkish military involvement in Syria. In the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.

☆ Supreme Court rules Helix Energy oil rig worker who makes $200,000 is entitled to overtime
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-22 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

The Supreme Court of the United States on Captiol Hill, photographed on Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2023 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an offshore oil rig worker who earned more than $200,000 annually — and whose company classified him as a "bona fide executive" — is entitled to overtime pay for having worked more than 40 hours per week. "The Supreme Court has sent a message to all workers paid on a day rate basis that they are entitled to overtime after 40 hours of work," Pechman said. "We hold that such an employee is not paid on a salary basis, and thus is entitled to overtime pay," Kagan wrote. A federal district court judge who first heard the case agreed with Helix's view, finding Hewitt was paid on a salary basis and thus was not due overtime pay.

☆ Supreme Court considers whether Twitter can be held liable for failing to remove terrorist content
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-22 | by ( Lauren Feiner | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +5 min

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that will help determine whether social media platforms can be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorism for failing to remove content and accounts promoting it. The case revolves around a specific international terrorist act, and contends that Twitter should be held accountable for not taking aggressive enough action against that content on its platform. Justice Elena Kagan at one point asked Waxman whether Twitter could be held liable if it actually didn't enforce any policy against terrorist content on its site. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked if it would be illegal to sell Osama bin Laden a phone without knowing it would be used for a terrorist specific terrorist act. Schnapper said it would not be necessary to prove the phone was used for a specific terrorist act, because it "aids the terrorist enterprise."

☆ Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in Twitter case with broad impact on internet
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-22 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +3 min

CNN —One day after Supreme Court justices debated whether Google and its subsidiary YouTube should be held liable for how its algorithm organizes ISIS content, the Court is set to take up questions of tech platforms’ legal exposure for user content in a Twitter case. The closely watched Twitter and Google cases carry significant stakes for the wider internet. Twitter had previously argued that it was immune from the suit thanks to Section 230. On Tuesday, the Court heard oral arguments for a case known as Gonzalez v. Google, which zeroes in on whether the tech giant can be sued because of its subsidiary YouTube’s algorithmic promotion of terrorist videos on its platform. A big concern of the justices seems to be the waves of lawsuits that could happen if the court rules against Google.

☆ Supreme Court justices in Google case express hesitation about upending Section 230
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-21 | by ( Lauren Feiner | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +5 min

Supreme Court Justices voiced hesitation on Tuesday about upending a key legal shield that protects tech companies from liability for their users' posts, and for how the companies moderate messages on their sites. The current case was brought by the family of an American killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris. Lower courts sided with Google, saying Section 230 protects the company from being held liable for third-party content posted on its service. Even conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has openly written that the court should take up a case around Section 230, seemed skeptical of the petitioners' line in the sand. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested it's not necessary to agree completely with Google's assessment of the fallout from altering 230 to fear the potential consequences.

☆ Supreme Court justices aren't 'the 9 greatest experts on the internet,' Elena Kagan said as they heard a major tech case
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-21 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

Section 230 provides tech companies with legal immunity over the content shared on their sites. "We're a court," Justice Elena Kagan said during more than two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments on the major tech case. The family argued that Google should be held liable for its platform, YouTube, recommending ISIS videos to its interested users. Both Republicans and Democrats have attacked the provision, saying tech companies should be subject to some accountability for how they run their platforms. Despite the justices' skepticism, however, some of them did question the broad legal immunity granted to tech companies during arguments on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court for the first time in this case is scrutinizing the scope of a much-debated 1996 federal law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users. "These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet," liberal Justice Elena Kagan said of the court's members, eliciting laughter in the courtroom. Kagan and conservative colleague Justice Brett Kavanaugh both suggested Congress might be better suited to adjust legal protections for internet companies if warranted. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Section 230 should apply given that recommendations are provided by YouTube itself. President Joe Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to revive the lawsuit by Nohemi Gonzalez's family.

Many of the details of the case are unclear, as the names of the law firm and client have been kept from the public record during the normally secretive grand jury probe. The law firm says it prepared the client's tax returns and also provided legal advice on how to determine ownership of cryptocurrency assets and value them. Those records, the firm said, were "dual-purpose" communications that contained legal advice as well as non-legal, advice concerning the preparation of its tax returns. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court judge in saying legal advice had to be the "primary" purpose of the communication to qualify for attorney-client privilege. She jokingly asked a lawyer for the law firm to comment on "the ancient legal principle of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

[1/7] Abortion rights campaigners participate in a demonstration following the leaked Supreme Court opinion suggesting the possibility of overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, in Washington, U.S., May 14, 2022. The report detailed an eight-month investigation conducted by Supreme Court marshal Gail Curley at the direction of Chief Justice John Roberts. The report did not identify a specific source of the leak, noting that none of the 97 court employees interviewed by investigators confessed to the disclosure. It was critical of some of the court's internal security protocols, and made clear that investigators would continue to pursue any new leads. "In time, continued investigation and analysis may produce additional leads that could identify the source of the disclosure," the report stated.

WASHINGTON, Jan 10 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday wrestled with a labor dispute that could narrow federal protections for unions by making it easier for employers to sue over strikes that result in damage to company property. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has leaned toward curbing the power of labor unions in rulings in recent years. 174, representing the company's truck drivers, in state court accusing the union of intentional property destruction during the strike. Glacier Northwest urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that federal preemption does not bar claims made under state law involving intentional destruction of an employer's property. While the U.S. Supreme Court has found that labor unions can be sued in state court for violent or threatening conduct, the union argued, this narrow exception should not be expanded to permit property damage claims brought under state law.

Sotomayor, who has dissented in major cases including the abortion decision as the court's 6-3 conservative majority has become increasingly assertive, described herself as "shell-shocked" and "deeply sad" after that term ended in June. The court's current term, which began in October, could be just as consequential as its previous one. In October, conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Dobbs opinion, warned against questioning the court's integrity. At Wednesday's conference, Chemerinsky noted that he had never before seen his law students so discouraged about the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, appointed to the court by Democratic former President Barack Obama in 2009, expressed optimism that the direction of the court will change in the future.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Republicans argued that North Carolina's top court usurped their authority by throwing out the map. In that context - a fight over counting ballots in Florida - Rehnquist said the U.S. Constitution limits the authority of state courts. "This court has never second-guessed state court interpretations of their own constitution," said Katyal. Thomas Wolf, an attorney at New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice, said if the Supreme Court gives itself too much leeway to intervene in state court disputes, it risks appearing politically motivated and lawless. The Supreme Court's ruling is due by the end of June.

Another state court then replaced that map with one drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wondered whether such broadly worded provisions provide proper "standards and guidelines" for state courts to apply. The Republican lawmakers argued that the state court usurped the North Carolina General Assembly's authority under that provision to regulate federal elections. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the "historical practice" that "nearly all state constitutions regulate federal elections in some way." David Thompson, arguing for the North Carolina lawmakers, said the Constitution "requires state legislatures specifically to perform the federal function of prescribing regulations for federal elections.

The position of others including Chief Justice John Roberts was harder to read, raising the possibility of a ruling less broad than the Republican state lawmakers pursuing the appeal seek. The Republican lawmakers are asking the Supreme Court to embrace a once-marginal legal theory that has gained favor among some conservatives called the "independent state legislature" doctrine. The Republican lawmakers have argued that the state court unconstitutionally usurped the North Carolina General Assembly's authority to regulate federal elections. Thompson also argued that state constitutions cannot impose substantive limits on the actions of legislatures on federal elections. A lower state court subsequently rejected the legislature's redrawn map and adopted one drawn by a bipartisan group of experts.

The Supreme Court's eventual decision, due by the end of June, could apply to 2024 elections including the U.S. presidential race. The Republican lawmakers have argued that the state court unconstitutionally usurped the North Carolina General Assembly's authority to regulate federal elections. Kagan noted that in a series of cases over the years the Supreme Court expressed that state courts had a role to play in this area. A lower state court subsequently rejected the legislature's redrawn map and adopted a new map drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. The Supreme Court in March declined a Republican request to put those lower court actions on hold.

☆ Supreme Court justices grapple with a Republican challenge that could upend how elections are run: 'This is a theory with big consequences'
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-07 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +5 min

The Supreme Court heard three hours of oral arguments on a GOP-led challenge from North Carolina. Barrett said adopting the North Carolina Republicans' approach would mean judges would have "notoriously difficult lines to draw." The state supreme court ruled that the map was a partisan gerrymander that favored Republicans, deeming it a violation of the state constitution. Alito noted that in some places, like North Carolina, state supreme court judges are elected by voters. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision in the case by June.

Search resuls for: "Justice Elena Kagan"

25 mentions found