Remove Compensatory Damages Remove Government Remove Statute Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Australia High Court Delivers Major Blow to Free Speech In Defamation Ruling

JonathanTurley

The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitive damages. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.

Tort 33
article thumbnail

Court to consider emotional distress damages under anti-discrimination laws

SCOTUSBlog

The ACA (in Section 1557) bars federally funded health care programs from discriminating in violation of certain civil rights statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act. The same is true, in effect, of other antidiscrimination statutes, such as Title IX. Cummings would have the court answer “yes.”

Court 85
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

Mopping up final business with 14 new relists

SCOTUSBlog

solicitor general on cases the federal government isn’t involved in, the government not infrequently delivers its invited amicus briefs just in time for the court’s last scheduled conference. So it is no surprise to see that three of the new relists involve invited government briefs on a range of subjects. Cummings v.

article thumbnail

November 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. California v. 19-17480 (9th Cir. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw.

article thumbnail

February 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Circuit held that the federalism canon—requiring that Congress use “exceedingly clear language” to alter the balance of power between the federal government and the states—did not support an interpretation limiting the best system of emission reduction to measures applied at and to the source. Third, the D.C. WildEarth Guardians v.