DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Supreme Court rules Helix Energy oil rig worker who makes $200,000 is entitled to overtime
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-22 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

The Supreme Court of the United States on Captiol Hill, photographed on Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2023 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an offshore oil rig worker who earned more than $200,000 annually — and whose company classified him as a "bona fide executive" — is entitled to overtime pay for having worked more than 40 hours per week. "The Supreme Court has sent a message to all workers paid on a day rate basis that they are entitled to overtime after 40 hours of work," Pechman said. "We hold that such an employee is not paid on a salary basis, and thus is entitled to overtime pay," Kagan wrote. A federal district court judge who first heard the case agreed with Helix's view, finding Hewitt was paid on a salary basis and thus was not due overtime pay.

☆ Supreme Court justices aren't 'the 9 greatest experts on the internet,' Elena Kagan said as they heard a major tech case
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-21 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

Section 230 provides tech companies with legal immunity over the content shared on their sites. "We're a court," Justice Elena Kagan said during more than two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments on the major tech case. The family argued that Google should be held liable for its platform, YouTube, recommending ISIS videos to its interested users. Both Republicans and Democrats have attacked the provision, saying tech companies should be subject to some accountability for how they run their platforms. Despite the justices' skepticism, however, some of them did question the broad legal immunity granted to tech companies during arguments on Tuesday.

☆ Supreme Court justices in Google case express hesitation about upending Section 230
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-21 | by ( Lauren Feiner | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +5 min

Supreme Court Justices voiced hesitation on Tuesday about upending a key legal shield that protects tech companies from liability for their users' posts, and for how the companies moderate messages on their sites. The current case was brought by the family of an American killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris. Lower courts sided with Google, saying Section 230 protects the company from being held liable for third-party content posted on its service. Even conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has openly written that the court should take up a case around Section 230, seemed skeptical of the petitioners' line in the sand. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested it's not necessary to agree completely with Google's assessment of the fallout from altering 230 to fear the potential consequences.

☆ Supreme Court set to hear Google case that could impact free speech online
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-21 | by ( Lauren Feiner | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +3 min

John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court, from left, Elena Kagan, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, ahead of a State of the Union address at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2023. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday in a potentially groundbreaking case with the potential to alter the force of a key law the tech industry says has been critical to keeping the internet an open place that fosters free speech. That case is known as Gonzalez v. Google, brought by the family of an American who died in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris. Now that shield is at stake as the petitioners argue it should not apply where Google actively promotes user-generated content, such as through its recommendation algorithms. The Supreme Court will also hear a separate tech case Wednesday that could have implications for how platforms promote and remove speech on their sites.

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.

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.

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.

Many of the details of the case are unclear, as the names of the law firm and client have been kept from the public record during the normally secretive grand jury probe. The law firm says it prepared the client's tax returns and also provided legal advice on how to determine ownership of cryptocurrency assets and value them. Those records, the firm said, were "dual-purpose" communications that contained legal advice as well as non-legal, advice concerning the preparation of its tax returns. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court judge in saying legal advice had to be the "primary" purpose of the communication to qualify for attorney-client privilege. She jokingly asked a lawyer for the law firm to comment on "the ancient legal principle of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

[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.

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.

☆ Five states will have politically-split Senate delegations in the new Congress, reflecting the nation's continued partisan polarization
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-02 | by ( John L. Dorman | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +8 min

The new Congress, which begins this week, will have five politically-split Senate delegations. But in the new Congress, which begins this week, only five states will have split Senate delegations: Maine, Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. AP Photo/Matthew BrownMontanaDemocratic Sen. Jon Tester and Republican Sen. Steve DainesTester was first elected to the Senate in 2006 and secured reelection in both 2012 and 2018. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty ImagesWest VirginiaDemocratic Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican Sen. Shelley Moore CapitoManchin is perhaps the nation's most recognizable moderate Democrat, having single-handedly scuttled Biden's Build Back Better agenda in December 2021. WisconsinRepublican Sen. Ron Johnson and Democratic Sen. Tammy BaldwinThe Badger State is often home to some of the closest races in the entire country.

WASHINGTON — Patrick Leahy was swept into the Senate nearly a half-century ago in the wake of the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon’s resignation and pardon. Ron Frehm / APSen. Leahy take photos on the inaugural stand during Barack Obama's presidential inauguration at the Capitol on Jan. 21, 2013. Let’s stay here and vote where we can be seen.”Sen. Leahy, D-Vt., walks to the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021. Ira Schwarz / APSupreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor is sworn in by committee chairman Sen. Leahy, D-Vt., during her confirmation hearing in 2009 in Washington. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., in the Senate subway.

☆ Judges' safety is 'essential' to court system, Chief Justice John Roberts says
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-01 | by ( The Associated Press | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +4 min

Indeed, we judges frequently dissent — sometimes strongly — from our colleagues’ opinions, and we explain why in public writings about the cases before us,” Roberts wrote. Separately, in December, lawmakers passed legislation protecting the personal information of federal judges including their addresses. Davies’ decision followed the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling that segregated schools were unconstitutional and rejected Arkansas Gov. Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education, became the Supreme Court’s first Black justice in 1967. The Supreme Court is still grappling with complicated issues involving race.

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.

☆ Democrats Hold the Senate, and Liberal Justices Suddenly Get Old
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-27 | by ( James Taranto | ) www.wsj.com time to read: +1 min

A “red wave” wasn’t the only election result that failed to materialize in November. Neither was there a surge of anonymously sourced stories to the effect that Joe Biden is too old and feeble to seek a second term. Instead, on Nov. 19, the eve of his birthday, the New York Times published a piece with the headline “President Biden Is Turning 80. Experts Say Age Is More Than a Number.” The Times cited one of those “10 experts in aging” in assuring its readers that “the life expectancy for the average white, 80-year-old man is another eight years.”But only two days after the election, journalists began calling for two considerably younger officeholders—Justices Sonia Sotomayor , 68, and Elena Kagan , 62—to step down. Dylan Matthews of Vox, a website that caters to left-of-center middle-aged millennials, tweeted on Nov. 10: “Assuming Dems hold the Senate, this is a good time for Kagan and Sotomayor to retire.”

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.

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.

☆ 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.

☆ Alito jokes about Black Santa and Ashley Madison during Supreme Court arguments
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-05 | by ( Https | Media-Cldnry.S-Nbcnews.Com Image Upload Newscms Summer-Concepcion-Byline-Jm.Jpg | Summer Concepcion | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +2 min

Justice Samuel Alito joked about Black Santa, children in Klan robes and dating websites as the Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case weighing a web designer's bid to avoid working on same-sex weddings because she is a conservative evangelical Christian. David Zalubowski / AP fileEric Olson, the Colorado solicitor general, said that the Black Santa wouldn’t have to follow through with the request since KKK outfits are not protected characteristics under accommodation laws. Alito quipped, “You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits, right? Kagan, who is Jewish, jumped in to confirm that Alito was correct, which drew laughter from those in attendance. Conservative justices on the high court appeared sympathetic toward the web designer’s bid as they heard arguments for more than two hours Monday.

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: "Elena Kagan"

25 mentions found