FDA Law Blog

MARCH 29, 2022

After years of regulatory procedures and litigation in two federal courts (the District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. The court decisions were subjects of prior blogposts (link here and here ).

Court Decisions 40

Court Decisions Technology Court Statute 40

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

OCTOBER 20, 2020

1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. 19-1189 (U.S. Shrestha v.

Court 72

Court Government Compensatory Damages Litigation 72

SCOTUSBlog

DECEMBER 31, 2020

Cohen – who first met the Lovings when he was just 29 – filed a lawsuit on their behalf, challenging the Virginia law and similar state statutes as violating the 14th Amendment. He and his co-counsel, Philip Hirschkop, took the case to the Supreme Court. Virginia , the court did find the statute unconstitutional.

Court 121

Court Lawyer Lawyers Administrative Assistant 121

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JANUARY 13, 2021

After Temporarily Blocking Activity on Helium Extraction Project in Southeastern Utah, Federal Court Denied Emergency Injunctive Relief. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Lawsuits Challenged Federal and State Authorizations for, and Sought to Halt Work on, Line 3 Pipeline Project in Minnesota. 4:20-cv-00115 (D.

Court 52

Court Government Technology Assisted Review Litigation 52

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

OCTOBER 7, 2019

The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. 97182-0 (Wash. 19-1140 et al.

Court 40

Court Government Statute Tort 40

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

MAY 7, 2021

Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. The states argued that the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan while it was under review by the D.C. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. 20-1530 (U.S. 29, 2021); North American Coal Corp. 20-1531 (U.S. Biden , No.

Court 40

Court Government Construction Litigation 40

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

SEPTEMBER 10, 2021

The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Northern Plains Resource Council v.

Litigation 40

Litigation Litigating Court Laws 40

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

MARCH 6, 2018

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision that vacated the listing of the Arctic ringed seal as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to Executive Order on Reducing Regulation. order setting schedule Mar.

Court 40

Court Government Laws Litigation 40

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JUNE 8, 2021

Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.

Court 42

Court Statute Government Litigation 42

SCOTUSBlog

AUGUST 26, 2021

District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who had previously agreed with them that the CDC does not have the authority to issue the ban, reasoned that because the new version was “virtually identical” to the version covered by her earlier ruling, her “hands are tied” by an appeals court decision putting that order on hold.

Court 125

Court Real Estate Statute Court Decisions 125

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

AUGUST 4, 2021

After the developers terminated the Keystone XL pipeline project, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 16, 2021 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction barring work on the pipeline.

Court 40

Court Litigation Litigating Government 40

SCOTUSBlog

NOVEMBER 9, 2021

By law, the program is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico or other U.S. Arguments at the Supreme Court. To qualify, individuals must show that their income and assets fall below federally mandated thresholds. territories.

Court 119

Court Government Depositions Laws 119

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JULY 2, 2021

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

Court Statute Litigation Litigating 45

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

APRIL 9, 2021

Two federal district courts—in Minnesota and the District of Columbia—granted motions to remand cases brought by plaintiffs against the fossil fuel industry. The companies filed an emergency motion for a temporary stay of execution of the remand order on the same day (March 31) that the district court issued the order.

Court 115

Court Statute Litigation Litigating 115

SCOTUSBlog

NOVEMBER 30, 2021

Three Republican senators – Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas – write that a precedent can be unworkable due to “a history of confusion in the lower courts, an unstable pattern of Supreme Court decisions, and a persistent lack of judicially manageable standards.”

Stare Decisis 136

Stare Decisis Court Laws Legal 136

SCOTUSBlog

JANUARY 13, 2021

They argue that the court nonetheless should grant review in order to clarify the law for future elections. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, has already opined that “ there is a strong likelihood that the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Court 81

Court Government Laws Statute 81