DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

March 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding structure is constitutional, a Manhattan appeals court ruled on Thursday, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider the issue next term. Circuit Court of Appeals finding the CFPB's funding unconstitutional. Circuit Court Judge Richard Sullivan said the constitution only requires that expenditures be authorized by an act of Congress. U.S. Supreme Court decisions and historical principles of congressional spending support that conclusion, he wrote. Circuit Court of Appeals, No.

WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow a federal law stand that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to own firearms. It was the latest victory for gun rights advocates since a Supreme Court ruling last June granting a broad right for people to carry firearms outside the home. The Justice Department's petition to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court was posted on Twitter late on Friday by Jake Charles, a law professor at Pepperdine University with expertise on gun control issues. The Justice Department said it was pursuing the Supreme Court appeal on a "highly expedited schedule" so the justices could potentially take up the case before the current term ends. Neither the Justice Department, nor the federal public defender representing Rahimi immediately responded to requests for comment.

☆ U.S. judge in Texas will soon rule on the abortion pill mifepristone. Here's what could happen
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-17 | by ( Spencer Kimball | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +7 min

The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine wants Judge Kacsmaryk to nullify the FDA's medical approval of mifepristone, which would effectively ban the abortion pill across the US. Senate Judiciary Committee | YouTubeA Texas judge will soon issue a pivotal ruling in a closely watched case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. It's also possible that Kacsmaryk could order the agency to impose tighter restrictions on access to mifepristone but stop short of completely halting sales. Abortion rights groups and legal experts expect the judge will rule against the FDA in some form. Possible injunctionIf Kacsmaryk issues an order to withdraw mifepristone from the market, there are several ways such a ruling could be drafted.

March 15 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge in Texas is set to hear arguments on Wednesday in a bid by anti-abortion groups to ban sales of the abortion pill mifepristone across the country, even in states where abortion is legal, as they challenge regulatory approval granted more than two decades ago. Twelve of the 50 states now ban abortion outright while some others prohibit it after a certain length of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. The judge cited death threats and harassment directed at the court during the case and a wish to avoid disruption. After appealing to the 5th Circuit, the losing side could seek to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia GaramfalviOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

☆ Justices ask government for input on Texas electric grid dispute
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-06 | by ( Clark Mindock | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +2 min

Miniatures of windmill, solar panel and electric pole are seen in front of NextEra Energy logo in this illustration taken January 17, 2023. Representatives for the U.S. Department of Justice, NextEra and Texas didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. Circuit Court of Appeals in August said the state’s law likely violated the clause and sent the case back to a Texas federal court for further consideration. V. NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, U.S. Supreme Court, case No. For Texas: Judd Stone of the Texas Attorney General’s OfficeFor NextEra: Lino Mendiola of Eversheds Sutherland, Stuart Singer of Boies Schiller Flexner and Matthew Price of Jenner & Block

The U.S. Department of Labor rule, which took effect Jan. 30, lifts barriers to ESG investing imposed by the Trump administration. The new rule sets guidelines for ESG investing, including requiring that socially conscious investments are still financially sound. They claim that allowing ESG investing will jeopardize the retirement savings of millions of people and lower state tax revenue. The Biden administration rule has divided the business community. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed various rules aimed at increasing transparency related to ESG investing.

[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.

Feb 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. consumer financial watchdog agency on Monday said it had permanently barred California mortgage broker RMK Financial Corp. from the mortgage lending industry, accusing it of repeat violations against military personnel and their families. "Our action reflects our commitment to weed out repeat offenders, and we are shutting down this outfit for good," he said. According to the CFPB, Majestic Home Loan "tricked" military families by falsely claiming government affiliation while also deceiving borrowers about interest rates. The agency on Thursday announced a $10 million fine against the Georgia title lender TitleMax for allegedly making unlawful loans to military personnel and charging illegally high interest rates. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal against an October ruling from the 5th U.S.

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.

The pre-Roe laws include criminal penalties for people who help others obtain an abortion. Pitman's order, which is preliminary, will remain in place while abortion funding groups, including Fund Texas Choice, The North Texas Equal Access Fund and The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, move forward with a lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of the laws. The order applies only to five individual local prosecutors who are named as defendants in the case, though the groups have said they will seek to expand their case to include a class of all local prosecutors in the state. Paxton's office and lawyers for the abortion funds and for the local prosecutors did not immediately respond to requests for comment. They cited statements by Paxton and by some state lawmakers suggesting that the pre-Roe laws criminalized funding or facilitating such abortions.

☆ 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.

Feb 23 (Reuters) - A group of four conservative-leaning U.S. states is challenging a new rule from Wall Street's top regulator that requires certain investment funds to reveal more about how they vote on shareholder ballots, including on pay packages for top executives. The new rule, which the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted in November, will put shareholders at increased risk of loss, encouraging political activism and raising administrative costs, according to the office of Utah's attorney general. West Virginia, Texas and Louisiana also joined the lawsuit, which was filed on Tuesday before the 5th U.S. Republican legislators and elected officials have voiced increasing opposition in recent years to what they view as progressive activism among large Wall Street investors and attempts to enable this through regulation. Reporting by Douglas Gillison in Washington Editing by Matthew LewisOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

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.

"It's judge shopping on steroids," said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, executive director of the progressive legal advocacy group Take Back the Court. The Biden administration has called the lawsuit "unprecedented" and urged Kacsmaryk to not deprive women of a long-approved safe and effective drug. At least eight have led to rulings blocking Biden policies, with several more pending. The chief judges of Texas federal courts have the authority to reallocate cases to other judges, but have largely not done so, he said. Absent a change, litigants have every right to take advantage of that structure to seek a favorable judge, he said.

In one, generic mifepristone maker GenBioPro is asking a federal judge to block West Virginia, which has a near-total abortion ban, from prohibiting sales of the pills. The state is one of 16 that allow abortion under some circumstances, but impose additional restrictions on mifepristone that make it harder to access. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE TEXAS PLAINTIFFS WIN? IS A WIN BY TEXAS PLAINTIFFS LIKELY? The West Virginia lawsuit makes a more novel legal argument, since West Virginia's abortion ban applies to all abortions and does not specifically regulate mifepristone.

Feb 4 (Reuters) - A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights. "The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation supports," Wyrick wrote. She called marijuana the most commonly used drug illegal at the federal level. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that decision in declaring unconstitutional a federal law barring people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Sandra MalerOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

☆ People under domestic violence orders can own guns -U.S. appeals court rules
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-02 | by ( Jonathan Stempel | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +2 min

Feb 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to own firearms. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest victory for gun rights advocates since a Supreme Court decision last June granting a broad right for people to carry firearms outside the home. In Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Cory Wilson said banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms "embodies salutory policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society." Rahimi had been under a restraining order since Feb. 2020, following his alleged assault of a former girlfriend. It had upheld the federal law last June 8, just over two weeks before the Bruen decision, but withdrew its opinion and ordered additional briefing.

Jan 23 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to weigh in on whether it should review Republican-backed laws in Texas and Florida that would undercut efforts by major social media companies to curb content deemed objectionable on their platforms, actions the states call impermissible censorship. Supporters of the laws have argued that social media platforms have silenced conservative voices while advocates for the judicious use of curbing content have argued for the need to stop misinformation and advocacy for extremist causes. Florida is seeking to revive its law after a lower court ruled largely against it, while the industry groups are appealing a separate lower court decision upholding the Texas law, which the Supreme Court had blocked at an earlier stage of the case. The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint." Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 upheld the Texas law, concluding that it "chills no speech whatsoever.

☆ U.S. appeals court strikes down ban on bump stocks
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-07 | by ( Jonathan Stempel | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +2 min

REUTERS/George FreyJan 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a Trump administration rule banning bump stocks, which are devices that allow people to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic guns. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said that despite "tremendous" public pressure to impose a ban, it was up to the U.S. Congress rather than the president to take action. Three other federal appeals courts have rejected challenges to the ban, and Friday's decision raises the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court could eventually decide the issue. A bump stock lets a gun's stock, which rests against the shoulder, slide backward and forward, letting users take advantage of the gun's recoil to fire rapidly. Circuit Court of Appeals, No.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday delayed a decision on whether to grant President Joe Biden's bid to implement his student loan forgiveness plan, announcing instead that it will hear full oral arguments on an expedited basis. In a brief order, the court said it would hear arguments in February with a decision soon to follow. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday refused to lift that hold, meaning that the administration could soon appeal that case to the Supreme Court too. A federal judge had ruled that the states did not have legal standing to pursue the lawsuit, but the appeals court disagreed, focusing on a Missouri agency that services federal student loans. The overall program is anticipated to help more than 40 million borrowers, the administration has said.

☆ Federal appeals court rejects Biden's bid to revive student debt plan
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-01 | by ( ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +3 min

A federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to put on hold a Texas judge’s ruling that said President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt was unlawful. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Biden administration’s request to pause a judge’s Nov. 10 order vacating the $400 billion student debt relief program in a lawsuit pursued by a conservative advocacy group. Circuit Court of Appeals that, at the request of six Republican-led states, had barred it from cancelling student loans. 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. About 26 million Americans have applied for student loan forgiveness, and the U.S. Department of Education had already approved requests from 16 million by the time Pittman issued his ruling.

Nov 30 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to put on hold a Texas judge's ruling that said President Joe Biden's plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt was unlawful. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Biden administration's request to pause a judge's Nov. 10 order vacating the $400 billion student debt relief program in a lawsuit pursued by a conservative advocacy group. Circuit Court of Appeals that, at the request of six Republican-led states, had barred it from cancelling student loans. 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. About 26 million Americans have applied for student loan forgiveness, and the U.S. Department of Education had already approved requests from 16 million by the time Pittman issued his ruling.

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.

☆ U.S. appeals court rejects Biden's bid to reinstate student debt plan
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-01 | by ( ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

A federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to put on hold a Texas judge's ruling that said President Joe Biden's plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt was unlawful. A federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to put on hold a Texas judge's ruling that said President Joe Biden's plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt was unlawful. Circuit Court of Appeals that, at the request of six Republican-led states, had barred it from cancelling student loans. 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. Biden's program has drawn opposition from Republicans, who have portrayed it as shifting the burden of debt from wealthy elites to lower-income Americans.

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.

Search resuls for: "5th U.S"

25 mentions found