Sweeping Legal Changes Late June is always when the Supreme Court issues its final, and usually most controversial, decisions, and this year was no exception. Read more about our Policy Perspectives here: https://lnkd.in/eEWvRViG
WINEAMERICA’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
In our latest blog post, Michael B. Kent, Jr. discusses a recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision holding that a Covid-19 era "lockdown" order violated the state constitution. #covid #pandemiclaw #ncconstitution #nclaw #constitutionallaw #constitutionalrights https://lnkd.in/eN97fQxB
Court Rules That COVID-19 Orders Violated Constitution - Envisage Law
https://envisage.law
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Doctoral Candidate, Robbins Fellow- Berkeley Law; The John L. Simpson ABD Fellow in International & Area Studies; Miller-ASIL Fellow, Climate Justice lawyer; Former UNFCCC Negotiator for LDCs Group; Chevening Scholar
The future actions of the U.S. #Supreme #Court's conservative judges are uncertain, especially regarding #federal rules and regulations. Although there's a chance they might reduce the power of regulatory agencies, it's not certain because the justices might not all follow the same path. It is important not to presume the worst-case scenario as inevitable, and maintaining advocacy for robust regulatory frameworks is key here. Tt's too early to abandon hope for a strong regulatory state.
Too often, I see people assuming that the Supreme Court is on an inexorable march toward destroying federal regulation. As Yogi Berra once said, prediction is difficult, especially when it's about the future. And especially when we're trying to predict how the views of a small number of individuals (Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) will evolve. We can't give up on defending the regulatory state.
Don’t Count Your Judicial Vultures Before They Hatch - Legal Planet
https://legal-planet.org
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
A Supreme Court decision (and dissent) that clearly draw the lines between principled originalism under our Constitution and advocacy for an all-powerful administrative state unconstrained by law. The 7th Amendment plainly requires a jury trial in all lawsuits. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought to charge the defendant civil penalties for fraud and, in doing so, acted as prosecutor and judge (no jury allowed). The Court said: “A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator.” Simple enough, but not for the three "progressive" members of the Court. In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor weaseled her way around the 7th Amendment by claiming "There are good reasons for Congress to set up a scheme like the SEC’s. It may yield important benefits over jury trials in federal court, such as greater efficiency and expertise, transparency and reasoned decision making, as well as uniformity, predictability, and greater political accountability. . ." "Sotomayor complains that the Court’s decision “prescribes artificial constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like.” No, it reiterates constitutional constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like. And “must” is a key word there. This stuff isn’t optional." "[Justice] Gorsuch writes: “The agency is free to pursue all of its charges against Mr. Jarkesy. And it is free to pursue them exactly as it had always done until 2010: In a court, before a judge, and with a jury.” You know, as the Constitution says. Thank goodness we don’t live in a world where Sotomayor’s dissent, with which the other two progressive justices agreed, is the opinion of the Court. Jarkesy makes clear that without originalism, there are practically no limits to government power." https://lnkd.in/gbprF53z
Thank Goodness Sotomayor’s Jarkesy Dissent Is Not the Opinion of the Court
https://www.nationalreview.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Founder / Director at Deep Nature Journeys / Rites of Passage Guide / Facilitator / Writer / Change Agent / Advisory Board Common Foundation / Advisory Board Y on Earth / Member Center for Purposeful Leadership
Given the political season we're in, knowing the importance of protecting democracy, the rule of law and Nature...not to mention the challenges our "Administrative State" is facing, this article clearly reveals what's at stake today in the Supreme Court: https://lnkd.in/gUn3-BFD)
Scholar explains implications of SCOTUS revisiting ‘Chevron deference’— Harvard Gazette
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Comprehensive Title Solutions FOR NC Real Estate Lawyers, BY NC Real Estate Lawyers. Internationally-recognized legal operations pioneer offering boutique title services for real estate lawyers & law firms.
Thx for posting. Starting in April & May 2020, after the initial, immediate fear subsided... the lockdowns started. At that point, 3-5 weeks into the world shutting down, it became screamingly apparent that something had seriously gone off the rails. I and an ad hoc informal group of 15-20 lawyers across NC got together, undertook doing pro bono work for 'Re-Open North Carolina,' and attended many of the periodic demonstrations/protests organized & attended in Raleigh. Early, the folks attending came from mainly by two distinct, with some overlap, groups: 1) folks who care about civil rights and the unfolding government overreach to grotesque and unprecedented ways that one would have thought-- especially by those in the Bar who know better-- unthinkable, indeed unimaginable, in these United States; and 2) small business owners-- multi-generational family owned restaurants, hair stylists, tattoo parlor owners, barber shop owners, whose lives' work, their blood, sweat & tears created and sustained small businesses that account for some 60% of the U.S. workforce & job creation. Notably, the MSM coverage of these protests & their attendees was a lie: Nazis, white supremacists, grandma-killers, etc. No one I encountered ever remotely fit that description. They were all salt-of-the-earth normal people whose lives and livelihoods were being destroyed. As a sidebar, it was revealing when the BLM riots and protests engulfed the U.S. and the world just 2-3 months later... most of the medical establishment, and media, the same lot who'd condemned in the most vile terms those petitioning their government to end the lockdowns, did a 180 so fast it gave one whiplash: never mind COVID-19, systemic racism is a far larger public health crisis! This is no dig on the George Floyd / BLM protests per se, but, rather, a 1st Amendment observation: one political viewpoint was 'acceptable' to protest. Another political viewpoint could not be permitted. It always struck me that the entire insanity of locking down the world, of creating arbitrary & capricious categories of people & work that were 'necessary' vs. 'unnecessary'-- leaving aside the ethics and morality of all of that-- legally was a de facto 'taking,' no different than if the state condemns your property to build a highway. After well over a year of this insanity continuing, however, it struck me that the sheer economic, social & psychological damage done by the lockdowns-- if a takings argument were to prevail-- would open the floodgates to State liability in the hundreds of millions / billions of dollars. Faced with that Q and the magnitude of the potential damages, methinks it'll be extraordinary for any court of appeals or state supreme court-- in any state-- to open the door for a 'takings' clause claim to hold up & be tried. The scale of the damage done is just too astronomic to get your head around. Will read the decision later, but thx much for posting, kind sir!
The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently held that a Covid-era executive order violated the state constitution by allowing some businesses to reopen while forcing others to remain closed. Specifically, the order ran afoul of two constitutional provisions -- (1) the "fruits of labor" clause, and (2) the equal protection clause. The court essentially concluded that there was no rational basis to distinguish the businesses allowed to open from those that couldn't. #covid #pandemiclaw #nclaw #northcarolinalaw #constitutionallaw #constitutionalrights #ncconstitution #northcarolina
Court Rules That COVID-19 Orders Violated Constitution - Envisage Law
https://envisage.law
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
In this Law360 piece, Eric Reicin, President and CEO of BBB National Programs, provides a comprehensive examination of the Supreme Court's recent #ChevronDeference ruling and its profound implications for regulatory #governance and industry #SelfRegulation. Read the full opinion piece below or here: https://lnkd.in/eWxaGGHA
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
📢 Breaking News! The U.S. Supreme Court has issued landmark rulings that significantly limit federal agency powers. In three pivotal cases, the Court’s conservative majority struck down key aspects of administrative authority, including the Chevron deference doctrine, SEC tribunal powers, and time limits for challenging regulations. These decisions mark a major shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, with far-reaching implications for regulatory practices and enforcement. Stay informed on these crucial developments and their impact! 📜⚖️ Read more: https://lnkd.in/epGq2e_p SCOTUSblog Supreme Court of the U.S. U.S. Department of Justice US Government Accountability Office National Governors Association American Bar Association #SupremeCourt #ExecutivePower #LegalNews #RegulatoryChange #ChevronDeference #AdministrativeLaw #FederalAgencies #Law #Justice #USPolitics #Government #Judiciary #LegalUpdate #CourtRulings
Supreme Court Strikes Executive Branch Power in Trio of Rulings — FEDmanager
fedmanager.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Fischer v. United States, significantly interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The ruling clarifies that the statute pertains primarily to evidence tampering, limiting its application to those actions that impair the integrity or availability of records and documents for an official proceeding. This interpretation raises important implications for other January 6th defendants, as it may narrow the scope of charges that can be successfully prosecuted under this provision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's concurring opinion suggests that interference with Congressional procedures could still carry weight, potentially allowing some prosecutions to proceed. As legal experts and policymakers digest this ruling, the ramifications for future cases could reshape the way obstruction laws are enforced. Click here to learn more: https://lnkd.in/ev5VWfiG #supremecourt #evidencetampering #obstruction
To view or add a comment, sign in
359 followers