article thumbnail

Immigration, takings, administrative law and the kitchen sink

SCOTUSBlog

The government takes the position that the statute forecloses only review of discretionary decisions not to grant relief, not factual findings that are factored into those decisions.) The court also has a pair of new administrative law cases, both captioned American Hospital Association v. Louis, Missouri , 20-391.

article thumbnail

The last grants of October Term 2022?

SCOTUSBlog

Louis, Missouri , 22-193 Issue : Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination as to all “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” or whether its reach is limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees. New Relists Muldrow v.

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

Justices delve into a trio of thorny issues in states’ challenge to federal immigration policy

SCOTUSBlog

Texas , in which Texas and Missouri challenged the Biden administration’s decision to end the Trump administration’s controversial “remain in Mexico” policy. “I When Prelogar countered that the lower courts had misinterpreted the statute, Roberts let out a surprised “wow.”. Jackson, who spent just over a year on the D.C.

article thumbnail

“Remain in Mexico” and Texas’ anti-abortion law

SCOTUSBlog

After Texas and Missouri challenged that decision, a federal district court vacated the secretary’s termination, in part on the administrative-law ground that the decision was insufficiently explained. In June 2021, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security issued a decision terminating the policy.

Laws 125
article thumbnail

July 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.

Court 45