DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Judicial security focus of U.S. Chief Justice Roberts' annual report
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-31 | by ( Richard Cowan | Industry Insight | Saw Law Firms Move Past The Pandemic Into A More Client-Focused Service Environment | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +2 min

[1/2] Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts departs the Trump impeachment trial in Washington, U.S., January 29, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermidWASHINGTON, Dec 31 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday focused a year-end report on the judiciary on the need for stepped up security for federal judges, amid a surge in threats and as the United States is embroiled in a bitter debate over abortion. Roberts' nine-page annual report came just two weeks after the U.S. Congress approved legislation that aims to bolster security for Supreme Court justices and federal judges by allowing them to shield their personal information from being available online. "I want to thank the members of Congress who are attending to judicial security needs ... essential to run a system of courts," Roberts wrote in his 2022 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. An armed California man was charged last June with attempted murder after being arrested near the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

[1/2] A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building on the first day of the court's new term in Washington, U.S. October 3, 2022. The Supreme Court on Dec. 1 said it would hear arguments on the legality of the debt relief program in the other case pursued by six mostly Republican-led states. Biden announced in August that the U.S. government would forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year, or $250,000 for married couples. Students who received Pell Grants to benefit lower-income college students would have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled. The Congressional Budget Office in September calculated that the debt forgiveness program would cost taxpayers about $400 billion.

Dec 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to revive a federal law that makes it a criminal offense to encourage illegal immigration after it was struck down by a lower court as a violation of free speech rights. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the law for infringing on rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. The dispute is similar to one that the Supreme Court heard, but did not resolve, in 2020. The 9th Circuit upheld Hansen's other convictions and ordered that he be resentenced. Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to hear the case, faulting the appeals court for invalidating an "important tool for combating activities that exacerbate unlawful immigration."

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.

The Republicans are asking the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to embrace a once-marginal legal theory that has gained favor among some conservatives called the "independent state legislature" doctrine. 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. 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.

Under this doctrine, they contend that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures, and not other entities such as state courts, power over election rules and electoral district maps. The Republican lawmakers have argued that the state court unconstitutionally usurped the North Carolina General Assembly's authority to regulate federal elections. 'CONFUSION AND CHAOS'Jason Snead, a conservative elections expert who embraces the doctrine, said the North Carolina case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to "shut down a lot of the confusion and chaos" occurring around elections. The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map on Feb. 4, finding the districts were crafted to dilute the "fundamental right to equal voting power" of Democrats. A lower state court then rejected a redrawn map by Republican lawmakers and adopted one devised by a bipartisan group of experts.

[1/2] Web designer Lorie Smith, plaintiff in a Supreme Court case who objects to same-sex marriage, poses for a portrait at her office in Littleton, Colorado, U.S., November 28, 2022. The court in that case stopped short of carving out a free speech exemption to anti-discrimination laws. Like Phillips, Smith is represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative religious rights group. The Supreme Court did not take up one aspect of her challenge to Colorado law based on religious rights also protected by the First Amendment, focusing on free speech instead. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has become increasingly supportive of religious rights and related free speech claims in recent years even as it has backed LGBT rights in other cases.

☆ Web designer opposed to gay marriage at center of U.S. Supreme Court clash
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-02 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +7 min

[1/4] Web designer Lorie Smith, plaintiff in a Supreme Court case who objects to same-sex marriage, poses for a portrait at her office in Littleton, Colorado, U.S., November 28, 2022. She argues that Colorado anti-discrimination law violates free speech rights by forcing artists - including web designers - to express messages through their work that they oppose. The Supreme Court did not take up one aspect of her challenge to Colorado law based on religious rights also protected by the First Amendment. His legal battle with Colorado also reached the Supreme Court, which ruled narrowly in his favor in 2018. The state warned against endorsing Smith's view of free speech protections.

Rulings by lower courts in two challenges filed against the debt relief program have put Biden's policy on ice. Biden announced in August that the U.S. government would forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year, or $250,000 for married couples. The Congressional Budget Office in September calculated that the debt forgiveness program would cost taxpayers about $400 billion. Biden and his predecessor Trump had invoked the law to pause student loan repayments. Biden on Nov. 22 extended the repayment pause to no later than next June 30 to give the Supreme Court time to decide the case.

Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday declined to put that decision on hold, and the administration has said it plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Biden announced in August that the U.S. government would forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year, or $250,000 for married couples. A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building on the first day of the court's new term in Washington, U.S. October 3, 2022. "We stand firm against the president's political exploitation of our student loan program just before an election," Peterson said in a statement. Biden on Nov. 22 extended the repayment pause to no later than next June 30 to give the Supreme Court time to decide the case.

REUTERS/Lucy NicholsonWASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday struggled over a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to implement guidelines - challenged by two conservative-leaning states - shifting immigration enforcement toward countering public safety threats. The justices voted 5-4 vote in July not to block Tipton's ruling halting the guidelines, announced last year by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. When the Supreme Court also declined to stay Tipton's ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. Prelogar called the states' claims of indirect harms insufficient to allow them to sue and urged the Supreme Court to limit the ability of states more generally to challenge federal policies in court. Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston and Andrew Chung in Washington; Editing by Will DunhamOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The court on a 5-4 vote declined in July to put U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton's ruling hold. On Tuesday, some of the conservative justices who were in the majority in that decision signaled that they were likely to rule against the administration again. Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana sued to block the guidelines after Republican-led legal challenges successfully thwarted other Biden administration attempts to ease enforcement. When the Supreme Court declined to stay Tipton's ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. Prelogar called those indirect harms insufficient and urged the Supreme Court to limit the ability of states more generally to challenge federal policies.

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is set to consider whether President Joe Biden's administration can implement guidelines - challenged by two conservative-leaning states - shifting immigration enforcement toward public safety threats in a case testing executive branch power to set enforcement priorities. Biden campaigned on a more humane approach to immigration but has been faced with large numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana sued to block the guidelines after Republican-led legal challenges successfully thwarted other Biden administration attempts to ease enforcement. Circuit Court of Appeals in July declined to put that ruling on hold, Biden's administration turned to the Supreme Court. The administration also told the justices that the guidelines do not violate federal immigration law and that the mandatory language of those statutes does not supersede the longstanding principle of law enforcement discretion.

[1/2] The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., June 26, 2022. The Supreme Court in recent years has limited the latitude of prosecutors in political corruption cases. The charges against Percoco and Ciminelli were brought in 2016 by former Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who also pursued corruption cases against top state lawmakers including former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. They also have asked the Supreme Court to reverse their convictions. A trial judge in July allowed him to be released from prison on bail after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The 2014 decision in the case called Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, like the June abortion decision, represented a victory for religious conservatives. The Hobby Lobby decision exempted family-owned businesses that objected on religious grounds from a federal requirement that any health insurance they provide to employees must cover birth control for women. Durbin urged passage of legislation that would create a code of ethics for the Supreme Court. Schenck, according to the Times, wrote to Roberts about his claim. Schenck said one of the Wrights then told him that Alito had authored the Hobby Lobby opinion and that it would favor the company, the newspaper reported.

The Supreme Court in recent years has hemmed in prosecutors in political corruption cases including a 2020 decision to toss the convictions of two aides to Republican former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie relating to the "Bridgegate" political scandal. The charges against Percoco and Ciminelli were brought in 2016 by then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who also pursued corruption cases against top state lawmakers including former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. They also have asked the Supreme Court to reverse their convictions. A judge in July allowed all four to be released from prison on bail after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Ciminelli's lawyers said such intangible information could not qualify as a "property fraud" under Supreme Court's precedents.

☆ Six states urge U.S. Supreme Court to keep block on Biden student debt relief
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-23 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +4 min

In their filing, the states said Biden's administration is trying to "assert power far beyond anything Congress could have conceived." The administration has said the Nov. 14 decision to block the plan leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo. The administration stopped taking applications for student debt relief after that decision. Biden's administration asserts that the pandemic represented such an emergency. That timing, Biden said, would give the Supreme Court time to decide the case before the pause ends.

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File PhotoNov 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Donald Trump's tax returns to a congressional committee, handing a defeat to the Republican former president who had called the Democratic-led panel's request politically motivated. The panel in its request invoked a federal law that empowers its chairman to request any person's tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). House Democrats have said they need to see Trump's tax returns to assess whether the IRS is properly auditing presidential returns and to gauge whether new legislation is needed. Trump's lawyers have said the committee's real aim is to publicly expose his tax returns and unearth politically damaging information about Trump. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in August also ruled against Trump and in October refused a rehearing.

The justices declined to review a ruling by a three-judge federal district court panel denying an injunction against the reconfigured state Senate district sought by the challengers. The dispute centers on a state Senate district that includes part of the city of Fort Worth in north-central Texas. loadingBlack and Hispanic plaintiffs sued after the Texas legislature approved new electoral maps in 2021. They argued that they had been "splintered" into other Senate districts where they will be "overpowered" by white voters. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs said resolution was needed prior to the 2024 election.

The SEC's whistleblower program was created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a law passed in response to the 2008 financial crisis. Under the law, eligible whistleblowers can receive a cash award of between 10% and 30% of any monetary sanctions collected above $1 million. Hong provided further documentary evidence, helping FHFA and the U.S. Justice Department secure settlements with RBS for $5.5 billion and $4.9 billion, respectively. Hong sought an award under the SEC's whistleblower program but the commission declared him ineligible because the action against RBS was not taken by the commission itself. Hong's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the SEC is undermining the aim of Congress to incentivize and award whistleblowers by "coordinating enforcement efforts with other agencies and then refusing to pay an award."

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away another challenge to a federal ban imposed under former President Donald Trump on devices called "bump stocks" that enable a semi-automatic weapon to fire like a machine gun. The Supreme Court in 2019 declined to block the ban from going into effect. The justices last month rejected appeals by a Utah gun lobbyist and firearms rights groups of lower court rulings upholding the ban as a reasonable interpretation of a federal law prohibiting machine gun possession. Bump stocks use a gun's recoil to bump its trigger, enabling a semiautomatic weapon to fire hundreds of rounds per minute to let it shoot like a machine gun. Two sets of plaintiffs filed lawsuits seeking compensation for having to destroy or surrender their bump stocks in the Court of Federal Claims, which hears monetary claims against the U.S. government.

The committee on Oct. 22 sent Trump himself a subpoena to testify under oath and provide documents. Trump, who is considering another run for the presidency in 2024, has accused the panel of waging unfair political attacks on him. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 22 declined to put the subpoena on hold while Ward appealed. Ward and her husband, Michael Ward, both signed their names on one of the slates of alternate electors for Trump. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had temporarily put the subpoena on hold on Oct. 28 while the full court decided how to proceed.

Search resuls for: "Andrew Chung"

25 mentions found