DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

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.

Dec 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place for now a pandemic-era policy allowing U.S. officials to rapidly expel migrants caught at the U.S.-Mexico border. The court said it would hear arguments on whether the states could intervene to defend Title 42 in its February session. Enrique Lucero, director of migration affairs in Tijuana, said it was "absurd" that Title 42 remained in place, noting the city had a large backlog of U.S. asylum seekers. It also failed to weigh the harm asylum seekers would face from Title 42, he said. When a federal appeals court on Dec. 16 declined to allow them to intervene and put Sullivan's order on hold, they took the matter to the Supreme Court.

☆ 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.

☆ Supreme Court extends Trump-era pandemic immigration rule to allow quicker deportations
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-27 | by ( Spencer Kimball | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +3 min

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to keep in place for now a controversial Trump-era rule that allows Customs and Border Patrol officials to deport migrants at the U.S. southern border as a public health measure in response to the pandemic. The Supreme Court also agreed to hear oral arguments in February and rule on whether the states can intervene, with a decision due by the end of June. More than 2 million people have been deported at the southern border under the policy since 2020. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the Biden administration earlier this month from ending the controversial policy. But Republican-led states intervened in the case and successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to block that lower court ruling.

The Title 42 order was first implemented in March 2020 under Republican former President Donald Trump at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Close to half of those arrested were rapidly expelled under the Title 42 policy. In that case, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., sided with the migrants on Nov. 15 and ruled Title 42 was unlawful. He said the government also failed to weigh the harm asylum seekers would face from the Title 42 order. When a federal appeals court on Dec. 16 declined to allow them to intervene and put Sullivan's order on hold, they took the matter to the Supreme Court.

☆ Supreme Court keeps Trump-era immigration policy in place, with Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch dissenting: 'We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort'
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-27 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +2 min

SCOTUS on Tuesday kept a controversial immigration policy implemented under former President Donald Trump in place. The policy enables the United States to quickly expel asylum seekers at the border on the basis of public health concerns. "We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort," conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. The justices voted 5-4 to grant the Republican-led states' request, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three liberal members in voting against the plea. The policy enables the United States to quickly expel asylum seekers at the border on the basis of public health concerns.

☆ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dominated oral arguments and challenged conservative thinking in her first months on the Supreme Court, observers say
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-26 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +10 min

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has sat on the Supreme Court for a little more than two months. The Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday, Oct. 6, 2022 in Washington, DC. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. Some court observers say oral arguments can potentially be an opportunity for justices to sway their colleagues' thinking – though that doesn't happen often. During the three hours of oral arguments, Jackson frequently threw cold water on the idea.

☆ Tech groups ask Supreme Court to rule on hot-button Texas social media law
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-15 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +3 min

Washington CNN —Two technology industry groups asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to review a hotly debated Texas law restricting social media platforms’ ability to moderate content, potentially opening the door to a sweeping reinterpretation of First Amendment precedent. The challenged state law, known as HB 20, would allow for lawsuits against tech companies accused of suppressing user posts or accounts. But Thursday’s petition brings the law back before the Court, this time for a possible ruling on the merits. That is why Texas’ law is unconstitutional, according to the trade organizations petitioning the Court on Thursday. Multiple Supreme Court justices have expressed interest in hearing cases that deal with content moderation, citing the enormous role that social media now plays in democratic discourse.

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.

☆ 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.

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.

☆ Supreme Court's conservative majority appears sympathetic to Christian graphic designer who refuses to create websites for same-sex weddings
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-05 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +6 min

The Supreme Court heard a free-speech challenge from a Christian graphic designer based in Colorado. Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative, refuses to create websites for same-sex weddings. At the heart of the case is a Colorado law that forbids businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation. "As a Christian, I can't separate my faith from who I am," Smith told Insider in a recent interview. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision in the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, by June.

☆ Dispute over North Carolina congressional districts tees up major elections case at Supreme Court
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-01 | by ( Https | Media-Cldnry.S-Nbcnews.Com Image Upload Newscms Lawrencehurley_Pic.Jpg | Lawrence Hurley | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +9 min

WASHINGTON — When the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the Republican-drawn congressional district maps in February, Rep. Tim Moore, the Republican speaker of the state’s House of Representatives, reached for some potent ammunition. Moore said in an interview that he backed the theory because it is the only way to challenge a state court ruling that he believes was not based on law or precedent. Republicans, led by Moore, immediately asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the maps. Gary D. Robertson / AP fileThe independent state legislature theory claims state legislatures have the final say over election laws, potentially shielding their actions from state courts. He also said he believed that the governor had the power to veto elections legislation, a procedure cast into doubt by at least one interpretation of the independent state legislature theory.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether an ex-aide to former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was lawfully convicted on a bribery charge as it considered narrowing the scope of a federal law aimed at curbing public corruption. Percoco says that because he was not working for the government at the time, he had no duty to provide honest services. The court on Monday is also hearing a second case arising from the same New York corruption investigation. Several others targeted in the investigation, including Aiello, have their own appeals pending at the Supreme Court.

☆ Trump rips the Supreme Court as 'nothing more than a political body' after they ruled against him, even though he appointed 3 justices of the conservative majority
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-24 | by ( Kelsey Vlamis | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

"Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do! "The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price." In follow-up posts, Trump rehashed complaints over the court's handling of the 2020 election and referenced reports of leaked opinions. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed Trump's bid to block his tax returns from being released to Congress. In his one term as president, Trump appointed three justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — cementing the court's 6-3 conservative majority likely for years to come.

☆ Trump blasts Supreme Court over tax return ruling after a tough day in 3 other courts
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-23 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

Former President Donald Trump stands on the 18th green during the Pro-Am tournament before the LIV Golf series at Trump National Doral, Oct. 27, 2022. "Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do!" Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social account. "The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price." Trump also noted that the Supreme Court previously had refused to take cases that sought to reverse his 2020 presidential election loss to President Joe Biden.

☆ Inside the new database disclosing judicial wealth and potential conflicts, from Justice Neil Gorsuch's $700 cowboy boots to Justice John Roberts' Irish cottage
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-15 | by ( Jack Newsham | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

One judge disclosed a six-figure investment in cryptocurrency. Those judges' financial lives, and more than 400 others, are laid bare in a new federal database that went live this month. Litigants looking for potential conflicts of interest, and pretty much anybody else, can see what federal judges own, who they owe, what side hustles they have, and what their spouses do. And while private-sector 401(k) plans need to be disclosed, federal employee retirement plans, known as thrift savings plans, don't. It only includes 2021 financial disclosures, and users who want information about previous years' disclosures will have to submit their requests manually.

That ruling, widely known as “Chevron deference,” directs judges to defer to agencies’ interpretation of laws that may be ambiguous. The companies sued the federal government in 2020 over the monitors, who ensure the boats are complying with federal fishing laws. The precedent has been viewed with increasing skepticism in recent years, especially among conservatives, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. v. Gina Raimondo et al., United States Supreme Court, case No. For the fishing companies: Paul Clement, Andrew Lawrence and Chadwick Harper of Clement & MurphyFor the government: Counsel information not immediately availableOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

WASHINGTON — Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Supreme Court ruling that upended abortion rights, was given a boisterous standing ovation Thursday at an event hosted by the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal group. Alito, in brief remarks at the organization's 40th-anniversary gala near the Supreme Court, praised the influence the society has had on the legal landscape, with its members now spread throughout the federal judiciary. Barrett made brief remarks praising the society, saying she had "benefited immensely" from her association with it, and she got her own standing ovation when she took the stage. Leo got yet another standing ovation Thursday. Over the years, chapters were formed at law schools across the country, where students and conservatives would debate the law, thereby helping to connect people and expose them to conservative legal theories.

WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett received standing ovations from members of the conservative Federalist Society on Thursday at its first annual convention since the court overturned a nationwide right to abortion. The loudest applause at the event in Washington, D.C. may have been not for the justices but for Alito's opinion in the June ruling. Other conservative members of the court backed the ruling. The conservative justices have been the subject of protests over their rulings, particularly after the abortion decision earlier this year. Leonard Leo, a long-time conservative legal activist, while serving as a Federalist Society executive helped compile a list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees that former President Donald Trump drew from during his tenure.

Among the provisions being challenged is one that gives a preference to Native Americans seeking to foster or adopt Native American children, which those challenging the law say discriminates on the basis of race. The challengers are led by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen — a white evangelical Christian couple who sought to adopt a Native American boy — as well as the states of Texas, Indiana and Louisiana. Tribes have also warned that a ruling striking down provisions of the law on racial discrimination grounds would threaten centuries of law that treat Native American tribes as distinct entities. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. The Supreme Court has been closely divided in two major recent cases on Native American issues.

☆ Factbox: Three states pass initiatives protecting abortion rights
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-09 | by ( Sharon Bernstein | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +3 min

In August, voters in conservative Kansas defeated a ballot measure aimed at eliminating abortion rights from the state's constitution. MICHIGANVoters in the battleground state of Michigan backed a ballot initiative declaring abortion as a right protected by the state's constitution. VERMONTVoters decided to include abortion rights in Vermont's state constitution. As required by state law, the ballot measure had already been approved twice by the Democratic-controlled legislature. Other conservative states have enacted similar legislation in recent years.

☆ Republican Sen. Mike Lee faces off against independent Evan McMullin in the Utah Senate race
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-08 | by ( John L. Dorman | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +6 min

Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee is running for a 3rd term against independent candidate Evan McMullin. In the Senate, Lee serves on the Judiciary Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging. Utah independent Senate candidate Evan McMullin. Republicans have won every presidential race in the state since 1968, often with landslide margins, and the last Democrat to win a Senate race in the state was Frank Moss in 1970. In the 2020 presidential election, Trump defeated now-President Joe Biden in Utah by 20 points (58%-38%), a significant drop from Romney's sweeping victory (73%-25%) over Obama in 2012.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined over the objection of two justices to decide whether defendants facing serious criminal charges are legally entitled to a 12-person jury, rejecting an appeal from an Arizona man convicted of fraud by a jury of just eight people. The decision not to take up the appeal brought by defendant Ramin Khorrami means states can continue to use of six- or eight-person juries for felony offenses. Florida, the third most populous state, uses six-person juries for all non-death penalty-eligible criminal cases. A 12-person jury is a common feature in dramatic depictions of criminal trials, such as the 1957 classic film "12 Angry Men." In February of this year, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to hear Khorrami’s case.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the two cases on Monday, with rulings due by the end of June. Blum's goal is for the Supreme Court to overturn its own precedents allowing race as a factor in admissions. Blum raised more than $8 million from 2015 to 2020 for Students for Fair Admissions, most going to covering legal fees. No Students for Fair Admissions members served as plaintiffs or testified in court in the Harvard and UNC cases as the group lost in lower courts. The Supreme Court in January agreed to hear appeals backed by Blum in both cases.

Search resuls for: "gorsuch"

25 mentions found