Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in its admissions policies and procedures by rendering a decision in the second case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was rejected for admission to UT Austin over eight years ago.
The Federal Circuit threw down the gauntlet, and we are waiting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up.
Recently, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court provided substantial guidance in an unsettled area of law by holding that, when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. §505, the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, a court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees.
It’s alliterative, sure, but the truth is nothing could be further from the truth. And representing it that way ignores the thoughtfulness behind the initiative.
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, upholding the PTAB’s use of the BRI standard for claim interpretation in IPRs, and determining that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute review on grounds not specifically raised in the IPR petition.
Today, one week following the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision requiring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to set-aside contracts and Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) orders for eligible veteran-owned businesses under the Rule of Two, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing on how the decision will affect VA procurement going forward.
In the much-anticipated ruling in the Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of the tribal court to assert jurisdiction over a non-tribal corporation operating its business on tribal land.
Today we all received the long-awaited decision from the United States Supreme Court in Bernard v. Minnesota (technically it was three consolidated cases, but here we’ll just refer to the whole decision as “Bernard.”)
Disappointing many, the U.S. Supreme Court has tied 4-4 in a case appealing a nationwide injunction on the Obama Administration’s executive action expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and creating the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs.
The Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016, that the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) 2011 regulation removing a long-standing exemption to overtime pay for auto service advisors was “procedurally defective.”