In the two months since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Robins v. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), a handful of federal circuits have applied the decision to pending disputes over Article III standing.
Not everybody has been high on life since Colorado passed Amendment 64 on November 6, 2012, which legalized the sale and distribution of marijuana in Colorado.
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court recognized that a “district court may find a patent claim to be valid, and the agency may later cancel that claim in its own review.”
The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) declined or was unable to resolve several regulatory issues in the Term just ended, but its few substantive decisions set in motion significant changes in the regulatory process.
Everyone is familiar (whether explicitly or just by precedent) with the code of ethics that governs how judges are expected to act on the bench. Depending on who you talk to, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke those for personal vendetta or for the good of the republic.
Before ending its 2015-2016 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. – for a second time.
Supreme Court Enhances Creditor’s Right to Bar Debtor’s Discharge of Debts-Expanding Reach of Actual Fraud and Shareholder’s Liability
Until the recent U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1581, 194 L.Ed.2d 655, 84 U.S. L.W. 4270 (2016), there was disagreement in the circuit courts regarding whether a debtor in bankruptcy could be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the evidence of wrongdoing proved the debtor committed actual fraud, but there was no evidence that the debtor made a misrepresentation to the creditor seeking to bar the discharge.
Being a U.S. Supreme Court justice is a great job. You get to keep it as long as you want, have a huge staff, are surrounded by smart people, are on a court that gets to pick the cases it decides and you get the whole summer off.
SCOTUS: No Quid Pro Quo Where Gov. Official Merely Arranged the Meeting, the Menu, the Venue, the Seating
The hit Broadway musical Hamilton depicts a backroom dinner meeting between then Congressman James Madison (Virginia) and the titular Secretary of Treasury, during which Madison proposes a “quid pro quo”: Hamilton will convince President George Washington to move the nation’s capital to the Potomac in exchange for Madison providing the congressional votes needed to pass Hamilton’s debt plan.
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a discriminatory lending case brought by the City of Miami against Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp. At issue is whether a city government is permitted to bring a suit seeking to enforce the equality guarantees of the Fair Housing Act.