Constitutional Law Reporter
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023
Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 7-2, holding that because §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 17, 2022
Share On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a VA benefits decision that was based on an agency regulation in effect at the time the decision was rendered does not constitute “clear and unmistakable error” even if the agency regulation is later deemed to conflict with the text of the relevant benefits statute.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JUNE 1, 2023
Supreme Court held that death row inmate Rodney Reed did not wait too long to seek DNA testing of the evidence in his case. According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.
Constitutional Law Reporter
APRIL 4, 2023
The statute imposes a maximum $10,000 penalty for nonwillful violations of the law. As explained by the Supreme Court, FBAR reports are designed to help the government trace funds that may be used for illicit purposes and identify unreported income that may be subject to taxation. . 5321(a)(5)(B)(ii)], it knew exactly how to do so.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
APRIL 18, 2023
The court overturned a District Court ruling to invalidate a Berkeley, California, prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly-constructed buildings. Berkeley’s so-called “natural gas ban” was the first local ordinance in the country to effectively require all-electric construction of new buildings.
Patently O
SEPTEMBER 21, 2022
. § 315(e)’s IPR estoppel provision applies only to claims addressed in the final written decision, as consistent with the holdings in Shaw , and Intuitive Surgical , and whether that interpretation remains correct after SAS Institute, Inc. But, lets look at the statute. But, lets look at the statute. Iancu , 138 S. 1348 (2018).
Patently O
FEBRUARY 24, 2022
Qualcomm , a case focusing on appellate standing following an IPR final written decision favoring the patentee. The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. Rather, an appellant must show concrete injury caused by the PTAB decision and redressability of that injury.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content