DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

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.

☆ Supreme Court refuses appeal by lawyer jailed for contempt in $9.5 billion Chevron environmental case
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-27 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +5 min

The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider the appeal of a disbarred lawyer jailed for contempt of court after he won a $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron in an environmental lawsuit in Ecuador . A group of Ecuadorians represented by Donziger filed a class-action suit against Chevron in Manhattan federal court in 1993. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were awarded $9.5 billion from Chevron by a judge in Ecuador. Chevron then filed a legal action in Manhattan federal court and won an injunction against the enforcement of the judgment in any U.S. court. In the Chevron case, Gorsuch wrote, "However much the district court may have thought Mr. Donziger warranted punishment, the prosecution in this case broke a basic constitutional promise essential to ourliberty."

☆ U.S. Supreme Court backs deaf student who sued Michigan school district
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-21 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +2 min

WASHINGTON, March 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a deaf student in Michigan to sue his public school district for allegedly failing to provide him adequate classroom instruction, a ruling that bolsters the ability of students with disabilities to remedy shortcomings in their education. The 9-0 ruling authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch revived student Miguel Luna Perez's lawsuit seeking monetary damages from the school system in Sturgis, Michigan, as the justices overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the case. Perez has said the school district assigned him an unqualified classroom aide who did not know sign language, and then misled his parents as to how much progress he was making. After settling an administrative complaint under IDEA with the district promising additional schooling at the Michigan School for the Deaf, Perez filed his lawsuit in federal court under the ADA, seeking compensatory damages. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 dismissed the case, agreeing with the school district that Perez could not bring his lawsuit before first exhausting the administrative procedures under IDEA.

[1/2] U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivers remarks during a discussion hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 12, 2019. A rare meeting of the Supreme Court Bar, comprised of attorneys admitted to practice law before the court, featured speeches from people who worked closely with Ginsburg including U.S. Trump also appointed conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Appointed to the Supreme Court by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993, she provided key votes in landmark rulings securing equal rights for women, expanding gay rights and safeguarding abortion rights. Ginsburg was the second woman ever named to the court, after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

☆ Neil Gorsuch cast doubt on a group of atheists' lawsuit over a Florida city's prayer vigil, writing that everything done by the government 'probably offends somebody'
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-07 | by ( Grace Eliza Goodwin | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +2 min

The Supreme Court declined to take up a city's appeal after atheists sued the city for hosting a prayer vigil. But Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed unconvinced, saying most government actions "probably offend somebody." The case will continue in the lower courts after the Supreme Court's rejection. The city of Ocala then appealed that decision, asking the Supreme Court to determine if the atheists were actually harmed enough by the prayer vigil to have the lawsuit move forward. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take up the city's case, with Neil Gorsuch choosing not to dissent from the court's decision.

☆ Atheists avoid — for now — Supreme Court review of Florida shooting prayer vigil lawsuit
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-06 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +4 min

In the Florida case, the Ocala police chief organized and promoted a prayer vigil whose attendees included police chaplains. The judge, in his ruling, applied the so-called "Lemon test," named after a 1971 Supreme Court ruling. In that 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court effectively jettisoned the Lemon test in deciding that the coach had the right to pray with players and others on the field after games. The court's ruling said the Establishment Clause "must be interpreted by 'reference to historical practices and understandings.' A majority of the Supreme Court's justices on Monday declined to take the case on those grounds, without commenting on the decision.

The plaintiffs accused Ocala of violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment "establishment clause," which restricts governmental involvement in religion. Ocala city officials helped organize and conduct the one-hour prayer vigil held in response to a series of shootings in which three children were struck by stray bullets. The city then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. A federal district court will now weigh the plaintiffs' establishment clause claims in light of the football coach ruling. The conservative-majority Supreme Court in recent years has chipped away at the wall separating church and state, eroding American legal traditions aimed at barring government officials from promoting any particular faith.

☆ Why a student-loan company's involvement in a case seeking to block Biden's debt relief might end up working in borrowers' favors
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-04 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +8 min

Student-loan company MOHELA played a central role in one of the cases seeking to block Biden's student-debt relief. All justices dug into whether the state of Missouri has standing to claim an injury to MOHELA is an injury to itself. Some experts said the company's involvement in the case could undermine plaintiffs' standing to sue. The states argued that Biden's debt relief would hurt their states' tax revenues, but that was an issue the Supreme Court justices barely questioned. "And two, that President Biden's debt relief plan would impact MOHELA such that MOHELA could not even start paying back its debts to the Lewis and Clark Fund."

☆ Biden says he's 'not confident' his student-loan forgiveness plan will be upheld by the Supreme Court
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-02 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

Biden said he's "not confident" the Supreme Court will uphold his student-debt relief plan. The Supreme Court will make a final decision on the student-loan forgiveness by June. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court took on the two conservative-backed lawsuits that temporarily paused Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt at the end of August. If the Supreme Court finds the cases do not have standing, the cases will be dismissed — the court would not even have the authority to rule on the other issues of executive overreach after that point. Even with the conservatives in the majority, it's unclear how exactly the Supreme Court will rule.

☆ Sonia Sotomayor pushes back on conservative SCOTUS justices who questioned the fairness of Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan, saying the US is 'not a society of unlimited resources'
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-01 | by ( Azmi Haroun | Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned efforts to gut the Biden student-loan forgiveness plan Tuesday. Sotomayor was among a few justices pushing back on common GOP arguments on the "fairness" of the program. Sotomayor was joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett in scrutinizing the cases' standing to sue. Every law has people who encompass it or people outside it," Sotomayor said, adding that "that's not an issue of fairness. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices in challenging the standing of both of the cases, but it would require the vote of an additional conservative justice to uphold Biden's debt relief plan.

☆ 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.

☆ Conservative Supreme Court justices target the fairness of Biden's student-loan forgiveness and executive overreach in their first round of questioning
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

Oral arguments on Biden's student-loan forgiveness are underway at the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch also asked Biden's team to address how the relief is fair to those who already paid off their loans. On Tuesday, the two cases that temporarily paused Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt arrived at the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing Biden's administration, took the first round of questions from the justices, and she defended Biden's use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to cancel student debt. He said that "modify" typically means "moderate change," and he questioned whether the language can also be used for broad student-loan forgiveness without Congressional approval.

☆ 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.

☆ The Supreme Court heard Biden's loan forgiveness case today. Here's when we expect the court to rule on student loans.
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( Michelle Mark | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +6 min

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday over President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Both cases the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday are seeking to permanently block his policy from taking effect. But it wasn't until August of 2022 that Biden announced he would use the HEROES Act of 2003 to enact his long-promised student loan forgiveness plan. Biden's use of the HEROES Act to enact a vast student loan forgiveness plan caused immediate controversy. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding two challenges to Biden's loan debt relief plan on Tuesday.

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.

☆ Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-20 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +7 min

Washington CNN —The Supreme Court is set to hear back-to-back oral arguments this week in two cases that could significantly reshape online speech and content moderation. The closely watched cases, known as Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, carry significant stakes for the wider internet. Many Republican officials allege that Section 230 gives social media platforms a license to censor conservative viewpoints. In recent years, however, several Supreme Court justices have shown an active interest in Section 230, and have appeared to invite opportunities to hear cases related to the law. The Court last month delayed a decision on whether to hear those cases, asking instead for the Biden administration to submit its views.

The Justice Department, in a Feb. 7 filing, told the Supreme Court: "The anticipated end of the public health emergency on May 11, and the resulting expiration of the operative Title 42 order, would render this case moot." The Supreme Court in December left in place the Title 42 policy, granting in a 5-4 vote the request by Republican state attorneys general to put on hold U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan's November decision invalidating the emergency public health order. Title 42 was first implemented in March 2020 under Trump, a Republican, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Biden, a Democrat, kept Title 42 in place after taking office in January 2021 despite fierce criticism from within his own party. Biden's administration sought to lift the policy after U.S. health authorities said last year it was no longer needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

☆ Trump's political ascent was fueled by Southern Republicans. Now they're his main 2024 opponents
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-28 | by ( John L. Dorman | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +10 min

REUTERS/Randall HillIn the pivotal 2016 South Carolina primary, Trump won the contest — beating Bush, Rubio, and Cruz in their own Southern backyard. AP Photo/Richard Drew, FileTrump is no longer a Washington outsiderIn 2016, Trump was a novelty to many Republican voters. And in recent months, DeSantis has increasingly eclipsed Trump as the top presidential choice among GOP primary voters. Haley and Scott could potentially be competitors to win the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. By the time the Florida GOP primary was held, Jeb Bush had already suspended his campaign, humbled by his fourth-place showing in South Carolina.

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.

☆ At least 1 law clerk is among a small group of suspects in Supreme Court investigation of abortion leak: report
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-13 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

Supreme Court officials have narrowed their abortion leak investigation to a small group of people, according to a WSJ report. A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately return Insider's request for comment. The unprecedented leak shattered Supreme Court norms, prompting outcry from several of the justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum. More recently, The New York Times reported in November on another alleged leak of a 2014 Supreme Court decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, a case concerning religious rights and reproductive health. Former anti-abortion leader Rob Schenck told The Times that he had gained advanced knowledge of the Supreme Court's decision weeks before it was released.

Sentencing Commission unanimously voted to publish for public comment a proposed amendment to federal sentencing guidelines relied upon by judges nationally that would limit them from considering a defendant's "acquitted conduct." The vote came a day before U.S. Supreme Court justices were scheduled to meet privately to consider hearing, among other cases, four different appeals by criminal defendants urging them to end to this common judicial practice. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 held that a jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent a judge at sentencing from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge. Some U.S. lawmakers and defense lawyers have criticized the practice as unfair and a potential violation of defendants' civil rights. Some members of the judiciary including current Supreme Court justices have questioned it.

☆ Justice Jackson working on a memoir, titled ‘Lovely One’
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-05 | by ( Associated Press | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +3 min

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is working on a memoir. Jackson, the first Black woman appointed to the court, is calling the book “Lovely One.”“Mine has been an unlikely journey,” Jackson said in a statement released Thursday by Random House. This memoir marries the public record of my life with what is less known. Jackson joined the court last year after President Joe Biden named her to succeed the retiring Stephen Breyer. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has a deal with the Penguin Random House imprint Sentinel.

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.

Search resuls for: "gorsuch"

25 mentions found