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 34
article thumbnail

Court to consider emotional distress damages under anti-discrimination laws

SCOTUSBlog

She — and the United States government, which filed a brief in support of her and will be presenting argument on Tuesday — contend as follows. Emotional distress damages, Cummings urges, are a traditional form of compensatory damages for breaches of contracts that protect non-pecuniary interests.

Court 84
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 court wrote that ultimately it saw “a greater threat to the separation of powers by allowing courts to pick and choose what law governs the executive branch’s ongoing duties.” The complaint asked the court for compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and costs of suit.

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. Army Corps of Engineers , No.