DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

The court on a 5-4 vote declined in July to put U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton's ruling hold. On Tuesday, some of the conservative justices who were in the majority in that decision signaled that they were likely to rule against the administration again. Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana sued to block the guidelines after Republican-led legal challenges successfully thwarted other Biden administration attempts to ease enforcement. When the Supreme Court 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 those indirect harms insufficient and urged the Supreme Court to limit the ability of states more generally to challenge federal policies.

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is set to consider whether President Joe Biden's administration can implement guidelines - challenged by two conservative-leaning states - shifting immigration enforcement toward public safety threats in a case testing executive branch power to set enforcement priorities. Biden campaigned on a more humane approach to immigration but has been faced with large numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana sued to block the guidelines after Republican-led legal challenges successfully thwarted other Biden administration attempts to ease enforcement. Circuit Court of Appeals in July declined to put that ruling on hold, Biden's administration turned to the Supreme Court. The administration also told the justices that the guidelines do not violate federal immigration law and that the mandatory language of those statutes does not supersede the longstanding principle of law enforcement discretion.

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.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to block the release of Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward’s phone records to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. The justices rejected an emergency request filed by Ward, meaning that phone records associated with her T-Mobile cellphone will be disclosed to the House committee. The committee is pursuing only Kelli Ward’s records. At the Supreme Court, Ward argued that the subpoena violates her right to freedom of association under the Constitution’s First Amendment. Those actions have come under scrutiny by the Justice Department as well as the Jan. 6 committee.

☆ Supreme Court allows Jan. 6 committee subpoena for phone records of Arizona GOP chief Kelli Ward
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-14 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +1 min

Arizona Chairwoman Kelli Ward speaks during the Rally To Protect Our Elections conference on July 24, 2021 in Phoenix, Arizona. The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request by Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward to block her phone records from being subpoenaed by the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The denial sets the stage for the Democratic-controlled House committee to obtain those records from her T-Mobile account. The order rejecting Ward's and her husband Michaels' request for an emergency injunction notes that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have granted it. Laurin Mills, a lawyer for Kelli Ward, when asked by CNBC for comment on Monday's ruling, wrote, "It is my personal practice not to comment on pending litigation."

The committee on Oct. 22 sent Trump himself a subpoena to testify under oath and provide documents. Trump, who is considering another run for the presidency in 2024, has accused the panel of waging unfair political attacks on him. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 22 declined to put the subpoena on hold while Ward appealed. Ward and her husband, Michael Ward, both signed their names on one of the slates of alternate electors for Trump. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had temporarily put the subpoena on hold on Oct. 28 while the full court decided how to proceed.

“Senate Democrats have been committed to restoring balance to the federal judiciary with professionally and personally diverse judges,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told NBC News on Saturday night. Senate Republican leaders told NBC News before the election that if they took the majority, they would use their power over the floor to compel Biden to send more centrist judges that GOP senators could support. He said Democrats keeping control means that if a Supreme Court vacancy were to open up, Biden’s nominee would be assured a vote. While the current 50-member Democratic caucus has been unified behind Biden’s judicial nominees, a 51st seat for the party could further embolden it. As a practical matter, that means Democrats currently need Republican sign-off to confirm judges in red states.

[1/3] A man rides a scooter past the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S. September 30, 2022. conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Malcolm Stewart, a lawyer for the Department of Justice representing both commissions. The Supreme Court's conservative justices have signaled skepticism toward expansive regulatory power and the duty of judges, under Supreme Court precedent, to give deference to that authority. She told Stewart that of the three factors relevant to the case under a Supreme Court precedent, "two factors are pretty darn bad for you." Axon sued the FTC in 2020 in federal court in Arizona following an investigation by the agency into its 2018 acquisition of Vievu, a rival body-camera provider.

☆ Supreme Court's conservative majority seems open to eliminating affirmative action in university admissions process: 'Why do you have these boxes?'
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-31 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +9 min

The Supreme Court heard two high-profile challenges to race-conscious university admissions processes. The court's conservatives appeared open to ending race as a factor in university admissions. Thomas, the second Black person to ever serve on the bench, has long been critical of race-conscious admissions policies. They cannot adopt race-conscious admissions and sit back reflexively and let that play out forever into the future," Prelogar said. "At present, it's not possible to achieve that diversity without race-conscious admissions, including at the nation's service academies."

☆ College use of race in admissions challenged at Supreme Court in arguments
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-31 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +4 min

"Racial classifications are wrong," the attorney Patrick Strawbridge said in his opening argument on behalf of the group Students for Fair Admissions. The Supreme Court began hearing arguments Monday in two cases that challenge the use of race-based considerations to determine who gets admitted to American colleges. Conservatives hold a 6-3 super-majority on the Supreme Court and are expected to be open to the arguments for ending affirmative action. The cases being argued are Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, case No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina, case No.

Kagan issued an order effectively putting the litigation on hold and preventing enforcement of the subpoena pending a further order by her or the full court. Kagan is the justice designated to handle emergency appeals from a group of states including Arizona. The panel sought the records as part of its investigation into events surrounding the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters who sought to block Congress from certifying his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump, who is considering another run for the presidency in 2024, has accused the panel of waging unfair political attacks on him. The panel had already been in the process of seeking records concerning Ward, who the panel said participated in multiple aspects of the attempts to interfere with the electoral count.

☆ Supreme Court's Alito says the recent pointed words between justices are nothing personal — but appeared to take a swipe at Kagan for her comments on Roe v. Wade
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-26 | by ( Rebecca Cohen | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

Justice Samuel Alito appeared to take a swipe at Justice Elena Kagan in an interview on Tuesday. "Someone also crosses an important line when they say that the Court is acting in a way that is illegitimate," Alito said. He added that the justices often disagree about the law but get along well personally. "We sometimes disagree pretty passionately about the law," Alito told Heritage President Kevin Roberts of his fellow justices. Roberts then pointed out that Alito recently said that questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an apolitical institution "crosses an important line."

[1/2] Associate Justice Samuel Alito poses during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., April 23, 2021. Alito, speaking at an event organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, also condemned the leak last May of his draft opinion overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, saying it made the justices "targets." Everyone is free to strongly criticize the court's decisions or the reasoning behind them, Alito said. In blunt terms, Alito also commented on the man who was charged with attempted murder after being arrested near the Maryland home of conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June. The conservative majority has shown an increasing willingness to take on divisive issues as it steers the court on a rightward path.

Fischer is also the author of Kentucky’s 2019 “trigger” law, which went into effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June and makes most abortions illegal in the state. This year, with 84 seats up for election in state supreme court races nationwide – the highest number in recent years, according to election tracking organization Ballotpedia – these down-ballot races are taking on a heightened significance and scrutiny. Four out of seven of Kentucky’s state Supreme Court seats are up on Nov. 8, with three of those races contested. But if the amendment loses, a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood attempting to overturn the ban would move forward before the state Supreme Court. A ‘new frontier’In Montana, Republicans have accused the seven-member state Supreme Court of holding a “liberal bias,” particularly while Democratic governors filled court vacancies in recent years.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan poses during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., April 23, 2021. Erin Schaff/Pool via REUTERS/File PhotoOct 21 (Reuters) - Liberal Justice Elena Kagan on Friday expressed hope that her colleagues on the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court could get back to finding "common ground," saying it risked looking political by continuing to overturn legal precedents. Speaking at an event at the University of Pennsylvania, Kagan did not explicitly reference the Supreme Court's decision in June to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Cases on the court's docket this term present opportunities for the court's conservative justices to flex their mussels further by weakening the landmark Voting Rights Act and barring the consideration of race in college admissions. "Time will tell whether this is a court that can get back to finding common ground, to ratcheting down the level of decision making so we can reach compromises," Kagan said.

☆ Ted Cruz reimbursed himself $555,000 after successfully challenging a political spending law at the Supreme Court
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-17 | by ( Bryan Metzger | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

Ted Cruz's campaign paid him $555,000 to cover old personal loans to his Senate committee. Ethics advocates and some Supreme Court justices warned that the decision could lead to corruption. And the one-time presidential candidate and two-term senator has the US Supreme Court to thank for it. That allowed Cruz to initiate a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, which eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan echoed that same argument in her dissenting opinion.

☆ Obama says 'a lot of voters' got 'complacent' when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-16 | by ( John L. Dorman | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

Former President Obama said "a lot of voters" became "complacent" when Roe v. Wade was the law. Obama remarked on Roe and the Supreme Court during a recent episode of "Pod Save America." Roe v. Wade. Obama successfully nominated two justices to the Supreme Court during his presidency — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — who were part of the minority of justices who sought to keep Roe in place. In 2017, then-President Donald Trump would go on to successfully nominate conservative Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and later selected Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

☆ Justice Clarence Thomas confesses he's a Prince fan during a spirited debate over Andy Warhol's artwork and copyright law
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-12 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +6 min

The Supreme Court heard a case involving pop artist Andy Warhol's iconic silkscreen prints of musician Prince. At issue is whether Warhol violated copyright law by relying on a photographer's image of Prince for his art. The Andy Warhol Foundation has asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling. "If you called Andy Warhol as a witness, what would he say?" "And this is a work of art sending a message about modern society," he said of Warhol's.

Oct 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed the constitutionality of a California law banning the sale of pork from pigs confined in spaces with too little space to move freely that industry groups have said impermissibly regulates out-of-state farmers. The law was approved by voters as a ballot initiative in 2018 to bar sales in California of pork, veal and eggs from animals whose confinement failed to meet minimum space requirements. "As I read California's law, it's about products being sold in California," conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said. The Supreme Court took up the case after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. President Joe Biden's administration has sided with the pork producers, saying in a Supreme Court brief that states cannot ban products "that pose no threat to public health or safety based on philosophical objections."

☆ Supreme Court rejects challenge to death sentence over racially prejudiced jurors
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-11 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | Lawrence Hurley Covers The Supreme Court For Nbc News Digital. | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +3 min

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a Black death row inmate's appeal over claims he did not receive a fair trial because several jurors had expressed opposition to interracial relationships. He stabbed all three to death and attempted to remove their hearts, saying later he hoped to “set them free from evil,” according to court filings. At the 2005 trial for the murder of Leyha Hughes, the all-white jury found that Thomas was guilty and sentenced him to death. One juror said that he opposed interracial relationships because it was "against God’s will," according to court filings. The state’s lawyers argue in part that all three jurors said they would follow the law as instructed and could deliver an impartial verdict.

☆ A Supreme Court battle between pork producers and California over an animal cruelty law could affect how much you pay for bacon
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-11 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a battle between pork producers and California. A California law requires producers to raise pigs with enough space to roam freely in order to sell pork in the state's market. Pork producers argued that the law is unconstitutional because it impedes interstate commerce. Pork producers nationwide have balked at the standard, claiming it's costly to meet, disruptive to the industry, and unconstitutional. Ultimately, the groups argued the California law impedes interstate commerce, in violation of a legal doctrine in the Constitution called the dormant commerce clause.

Oct 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday questioned whether upholding a California law banning the sale of pork from pigs kept in tightly confined spaces would invite states to adopt laws imposing their political or moral views outside their borders. "It's an extraterritorial regulation that conditions pork sales on out-of-state farmers adopting California's preferred farming methods for no valid safety reasons," Bishop said, noting that 99.9% of California's pork comes from elsewhere. "As I read California's law, it's about products being sold in California," conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that while California represents a huge market, "no one's forcing them to sell to California." 'SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT'But liberal Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson said that the court must accept that California's law will have a "substantial impact on the operation of this market."

☆ See the first-ever Supreme Court photo with 4 female justices as Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the bench
▼ + stars: | 2022-10-07 | by ( Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +2 min

The Supreme Court posed for a group photo with its newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stands between Associate Justice Samuel Alito, left, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, right. Scott ApplewhiteThe group photo came as the Supreme Court kicked off its new term, which is shaping up to a be a consequential one.

☆ Kagan v. Roberts: Justices Spar Over Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
▼ + stars: | 2022-09-29 | by ( Jess Bravin | ) www.wsj.com time to read: 1 min

WASHINGTON—During the summer months when the Supreme Court was out of session, new arguments arose between the justices themselves on whether the court’s legitimacy, in the eyes of the American public, was imperiled after it overturned longstanding precedents in its most recent term. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan , in a series of public appearances, said the court’s conservative majority had diminished the high court’s credibility with decisions that track Republican priorities. Chief Justice John Roberts , speaking at a separate event, retorted that the court’s decisions have no bearing on its legitimacy as it carries out its mandate to interpret the Constitution. On his side was fellow conservative Samuel Alito , author of the majority opinion in the term’s landmark case overturning Roe v. Wade, eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

☆ Supreme Court announces partial reopening to public for new term
▼ + stars: | 2022-09-28 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | Lawrence Hurley Covers The Supreme Court For Nbc News Digital. | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +3 min

The court said in a statement Wednesday that people will be able to attend oral arguments when its new term starts Monday, although "the building will otherwise remain closed to the public." In March 2020, the justices initially pivoted to holding remote oral arguments by teleconference before they resumed in-person oral arguments in a largely empty courtroom last fall. In a major development, the court began livestreaming audio of oral arguments at the beginning of the pandemic, for the first time allowing the public to hear the court proceedings without being present in the courtroom. Throughout the pandemic, tourists have been barred from the court building, with only some court staff members, lawyers and journalists allowed access at certain times. In June, as the court issued its abortion ruling and other big decisions, a security fence surrounded the court.

Search resuls for: "Elena Kagan"

25 mentions found