DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

[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.

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.

The state Supreme Court blocked the Republican map as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the dispute in December but has not issued a ruling in the high-profile case. The justices' order on Thursday cited a federal law giving it jurisdiction over final judgments issued by state supreme courts. Members of the state Supreme Court are elected by voters in North Carolina. In their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the North Carolina Republicans contended that the state court usurped the state General Assembly's authority under that provision to regulate federal elections.

Questions posed by the conservative justices during arguments on Tuesday over Biden's debt relief indicated that the conservative-majority court could strike down the plan as an unlawful overreach of executive power. "If Congress can't or won't step up, and the court won't let presidents do so, what are we left with? Its conservative justices already have invoked it to scuttle a pandemic-era residential eviction moratorium, a COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandate for large businesses and federal limits on carbon emissions from power plants. In some instances, like Biden's unilateral effort to extend the eviction moratorium, he took executive action following congressional inaction. "I'm concerned that we're going to have a problem in terms of the federal government's ability to operate," Jackson said.

[1/2] U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks about the student loan forgiveness program from an auditorium on the White House campus in Washington, U.S., October 17, 2022. The program fulfilled Biden's 2020 campaign promise to cancel a portion of the nation's $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt but was criticized by Republicans and others as an overreach of his authority. Biden's administration has said the plan is authorized under a 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, that allows student loan debt relief during wartime or national emergencies. Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, repeatedly paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing, relying upon the HEROES Act. Missouri-based U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey found the states - Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina lacked the legal standing to sue.

The justices will hear the case during the court's next term, which begins in October. The case is the latest to come before the Supreme Court seeking to rein in the authority of federal agencies. The CFPB, which enforces consumer financial laws, was created after the 2008 financial crisis as part of a federal law known as the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. A Democratic-led Congress in 2010 set up the agency to draw funding annually from the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, which last fiscal year transferred around $642 million to the consumer protection agency. The court heard arguments in November in two other cases involving agency power.

☆ U.S. Supreme Court's 'major questions' test may doom Biden student debt plan
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-23 | by ( John Kruzel | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +6 min

She did not realize she was setting off on a path toward another, less-welcome family first - racking up more than $150,000 in student debt. The major questions doctrine is an outgrowth of an approach favored by many conservatives and business groups to curb what they call the excesses of the "administrative state." Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, repeatedly paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing. Two lawsuits - one by six conservative-leaning states and the other by two student loan borrowers who opposed the plan's eligibility requirements - prompted lower courts to block it. 'INSUFFICIENT FUNDS'The major questions doctrine gives judges broad discretion to invalidate executive agency actions unless Congress clearly authorized them in legislation.

[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.

[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. The lower court dismissed that case largely based on Section 230 immunity. In the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Islamic State called the 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."

Both lawsuits were brought under a U.S. law that enables Americans to recover damages related to "an act of international terrorism." The lower court dismissed that case largely based on Section 230 immunity. In the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Islamic State called the 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 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.

Circuit Court of Appeals relied on another law, called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, that protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users. This case marks the first time the Supreme Court will examine the scope of Section 230. Many websites and social media companies use similar technology to give users relevant content such as job listings, search engine results, songs and movies. Legal experts note that companies could employ other legal defenses if Section 230 protections are eroded. Many conservatives have said voices on the right are censored by social media companies under the guise of content moderation.

Companies Deutsche Bank AG FollowJan 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals by two former Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) commodities traders convicted of manipulating precious metals prices by placing "spoof" orders. The pair were convicted in 2020 for carrying out what prosecutors said was a yearslong spoofing scheme between 2008 and 2013. Their trades created a false sense of supply and demand, and induced other traders to make trades they would otherwise not have made, prosecutors said. On appeal, Vorley and Chanu argued they had not made the kind of explicit false statements targeted by wire-fraud law. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the convictions last July, saying that "spoofing of this kind falls under the wire fraud prohibition."

[1/2] U.S. Supreme Court police officers stand on the front steps of the Supreme Court building prior to the official investiture ceremony for the court's newest Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the start of the court's 2022-2023 term in Washington, U.S. September 30, 2022. The report said the Supreme Court's information security environment was "built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information." But it called the court's information security policies "outdated" and recommended that it overhaul its platform for handling case-related documents and remedy "inadequate safeguards" for tracking who prints and copies documents. The Supreme Court's IT systems operate separately from the rest of the federal judiciary. U.S. judiciary officials have said the systems used by federal appellate and district courts also are outdated and need modernization.

The report said investigators interviewed 97 court employees but was silent on whether the nine justices who sat on the court at the time of the leak were interviewed, prompting calls from Democratic lawmakers and others for clarity. "During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the justices, several on multiple occasions," Curley said in the statement, released by the court. "I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses," Curley added. Curley said on that basis she decided it was not necessary to ask the justices to sign sworn affidavits affirming they did not leak the draft, something court employees were required to do. Gabe Roth, executive director of the court reform group Fix the Court, said the fact that the report initially omitted the fact that the justices were interviewed "smells fishy."

[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.

The policy was put into effect by Trump's administration in February 2020 and ended by Biden's in March 2021. The judge later rejected the Republican bid to intervene, saying the request by the state officials came too late, and the Chicago-based 7th U.S. The Republican officials had told the justices that they should be able to defend Trump's rule, saying it has been estimated to save states collectively about $1 billion annually. The Supreme Court last year heard arguments over a separate bid by Republican state officials to intervene in defense of Trump's public charge rule but ultimately dismissed the case without resolving the issue. Texas on Thursday filed a separate federal lawsuit challenging Biden's rule.

Search resuls for: "John Kruzel"

18 mentions found