Explore

US Supreme Court backs generic drugmaker in 'skinny label' patent case

US Supreme Court backs generic drugmaker in 'skinny label' patent case

By Blake Brittain WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) - The U.S.

Supreme Court Supports Hikma in Generic Drug Labeling Dispute

Supreme Court Supports Hikma in Generic Drug Labeling Dispute

Supreme Court Supports Hikma in Generic Drug Labeling Dispute

Supreme Court upholds broad reading of SEC authority to recoup ill-gotten gains in fraud cases

Supreme Court upholds broad reading of SEC authority to recoup ill-gotten gains in fraud cases

The Supreme Court has upheld a broad reading of the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission to recoup ill-gotten gains from people who engage in securities fraud

Supreme Court Rules Against Immediate Jury Trials for FCC Fines

Supreme Court Rules Against Immediate Jury Trials for FCC Fines

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that telecommunications companies cannot demand immediate jury trials when fined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The decision clarifies that forfeiture orders issued by the FCC do not constitute a conclusive determination of a case, allowing companies to await further litigation before paying fines.

Supreme Court Upholds FCC's Authority to Fine Telecom Companies Over Data Privacy

Supreme Court Upholds FCC's Authority to Fine Telecom Companies Over Data Privacy

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a case involving major telecom companies AT&T and Verizon. The court's 8-1 decision supports the FCC's authority to impose fines on these companies for failing to protect customer data privacy. The case centered on the FCC's in-house proceedings for levying fines, which AT&T and Verizon argued violated their constitutional right to a jury trial. The ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, maintains that the FCC's process does not prevent companies from challenging fines in court. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, criticizing the decision as unfair to the companies. The FCC had fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon $47 million for allegedly selling customer location data without consent.

Broadview 6 Seek Attorneys' Fees as U.S. Attorney Discloses Grand Jury Speech

Broadview 6 Seek Attorneys' Fees as U.S. Attorney Discloses Grand Jury Speech

In a rare legal development, the 'Broadview 6' have filed for attorneys' fees following the U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros's disclosure of a grand jury speech transcript. The speech, delivered in October, led to the indictment of the group on the same day. This move by the U.S. Attorney is unusual, as grand jury proceedings are typically kept confidential. The 'Broadview 6' case has garnered attention due to its legal complexities and the implications of the U.S. Attorney's actions, which may influence the outcome of the case and the legal strategies employed by the defense.

Supreme Court to Review Texas Inmate's Appeal on First Step Act Credits

Supreme Court to Review Texas Inmate's Appeal on First Step Act Credits

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from William Maxwell, a Texas inmate who represented himself in seeking a transfer from prison to less restrictive custody. Maxwell argues he was wrongly denied good time credit under the First Step Act, which would have allowed him to leave prison early and serve his sentence in a halfway house or on home confinement. The case challenges the Fifth Circuit's separation of civil rights suits and habeas petitions, questioning whether disputes over First Step Act time credits are actionable under the federal habeas statute. Maxwell's appeal is notable as he is a rare pro se litigant to have his case taken up by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Cases Could Bolster Anti-Vaccine Movement with Religious Exemptions

Supreme Court Cases Could Bolster Anti-Vaccine Movement with Religious Exemptions

The anti-vaccine movement in the U.S. is gaining momentum through legal challenges that argue vaccine mandates without religious exemptions violate First Amendment rights. Prominent groups like Children's Health Defense and Informed Consent Action Network have invested heavily in legal battles, spending nearly $50 million since 2016. These efforts focus on challenging state mandates and advocating for religious exemptions. The Supreme Court has shown interest in cases that could reshape the legal landscape for vaccine mandates, potentially leading to broader exemptions. This legal strategy comes amid declining vaccination rates and increased public health risks.

Pentagon Policy on Transgender Troops Ruled Illegal by Appeals Court

Pentagon Policy on Transgender Troops Ruled Illegal by Appeals Court

A federal appeals court panel has ruled that a Pentagon policy banning transgender individuals from military service is illegal. The decision, made by a divided three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, found that the Trump administration's policy was designed to exclude people based on their gender identity. The ruling partially upholds a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who concluded that the policy likely violates constitutional rights. The ban, however, remains in effect as the U.S. Supreme Court had previously allowed its enforcement. The appeals court's decision prevents the military from discharging current service members involved in the lawsuit but does not permit new transgender recruits to join. The ruling is on hold to allow the administration to seek further review.

Dali Civil Trial Delayed Indefinitely as Most Claims Settle, Legal Issues Remain

Dali Civil Trial Delayed Indefinitely as Most Claims Settle, Legal Issues Remain

The civil trial concerning the containership Dali has been postponed indefinitely by a U.S. federal district court judge. This decision follows a motion by the vessel's owners, Grace Ocean, and its manager, Synergy Marine, to delay proceedings. The trial was initially set to begin with opening arguments, but the judge expressed frustration over the delay after more than two years of legal proceedings. Most of the 54 initial claims have been settled or dismissed, including all wrongful death claims and those from injured survivors. However, unresolved claims remain, including a property damage claim from the City of Baltimore and economic loss claims. The delay is partly to consider a legal issue related to these remaining claims, specifically a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affects economic loss recoveries. The judge has given parties two weeks to file new motions on this issue.

Justice Clarence Thomas Criticizes Supreme Court's Decision in Death Penalty Case

Justice Clarence Thomas Criticizes Supreme Court's Decision in Death Penalty Case

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed dissent over the Court's decision to intervene in a death penalty case involving Gary Whitton. The case centers on the use of false testimony and new DNA evidence in Whitton's conviction for murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the Eleventh Circuit erred by considering DNA evidence discovered after the trial when assessing the impact of false testimony. Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the Court's involvement was unnecessary and criticized the decision as a minor issue that did not affect the case's outcome.

Federal Ban on Home Distilling Faces Legal Challenges with Potential Supreme Court Review

Federal Ban on Home Distilling Faces Legal Challenges with Potential Supreme Court Review

The federal government's longstanding ban on home distilling is facing significant legal challenges that could lead to a Supreme Court review. The ban, which dates back to 1868, prohibits the distillation of spirits in private homes and is enforced through heavy fines and potential imprisonment. Recent legal actions have brought this issue to the forefront, with two federal circuit court decisions offering conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of the ban. One court upheld the ban, while another struck it down, citing concerns over the federal government's interpretation of its taxing and commerce powers. The legal debate centers on whether the ban is a necessary exercise of government power to prevent tax evasion or an overreach that infringes on personal liberties.