article thumbnail

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

SCOTUSBlog

1983 — which allows private suits for state and local deprivations of rights secured by federal law—to enforce federal statutes enacted under Congress’ spending clause power. Laws” means federal statutes, including spending clause enactments that “unambiguously” create individual rights. Background.

article thumbnail

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

SCOTUSBlog

The relevant statute , regulating disability benefits, provides that “the United States will pay [compensation] to any veteran” who is “disabled” as a result of (1) “personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty,” or (2) “aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty.” military veterans.

Statute 104
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

Both cases present the question whether statutes that authorize appellate courts to review final agency adjudications implicitly strip district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to those proceedings. The next two relists raise a related question: whether a habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. Federal Trade Commission.

article thumbnail

Allegations of racial bias in a death penalty trial

SCOTUSBlog

Cochran , the justices will decide whether federal district courts have the power to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the commission’s administrative law proceedings. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. The case is sufficiently similar to Axon Enterprise, Inc. Breckon , pending the outcome in Jones.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court to hear major case on power of federal agencies

SCOTUSBlog

Justice John Paul Stevens set out a two-part test for courts to review an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. If it has not, the court must uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it is reasonable.