Remove Administrative Law Remove Government Remove Legal Remove Stare Decisis
article thumbnail

Justice Breyer: A pragmatic moderate

SCOTUSBlog

Idealogues have sought to reshape the court’s jurisprudence in their own ideological vision, whether liberal or conservative, often at the expense of stare decisis and typically voiced most vigorously in dissenting opinions. While on leave from Harvard, he served as a senior legal adviser in the Senate. The pragmatist.

article thumbnail

In family’s lawsuit against public nursing home, court revisits private rights of action and the spending clause

SCOTUSBlog

VCR is a government nursing facility in Indiana owned by petitioner Health and Hospital Corp., A state administrative law judge found one late-2016 transfer to have violated FNHRA and ordered Talevski returned to VCR; the family chose to move him to a different facility. a municipal entity.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Challenges to administrative action and retroactive relief for prisoners

SCOTUSBlog

This week they’re replaced by three new relists, all involving government petitions in one way or another. Both cases arise in the context of administrative proceedings brought by independent enforcement agencies against regulated parties — Axon by the Federal Trade Commission, and Cochran by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

article thumbnail

Justices to consider scope of “clear and unmistakable error” review of Veterans Affairs decisions

SCOTUSBlog

George’s petition asserted that the board’s 1977 decision had rested on a “clear and unmistakable error” because the board had failed to correctly apply the “presumption of sound condition” required by a different provision of the statute governing veterans’ benefits.

Statute 107
article thumbnail

Supreme Court to hear major case on power of federal agencies

SCOTUSBlog

The stakes in the case are high: The challengers argue that the current deferential standard is unconstitutional, while the Biden administration contends that overturning the existing doctrine would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system.” The doctrine at the center of the case is known as the Chevron doctrine.