Explore

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

Catholic Law Firm Provides Guidelines for Upholding Parental Rights in Schools

Catholic Law Firm Provides Guidelines for Upholding Parental Rights in Schools

The Thomas More Society, a Catholic law firm, has released guidelines to assist school districts in upholding parental rights. This follows recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, Mahmoud v. Taylor and Mirabelli v. Bonta, which clarified parental rights in schools. The guidelines recommend that districts adopt policies for parental notice and opt-out options, ensuring parents are informed about instructional content that may conflict with their beliefs. The firm advises repealing policies that conceal information about children's health from parents and those facilitating social gender transitions without parental consent.

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.

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 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

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds FCC's Authority to Fine Wireless Carriers Over Data Privacy Violations

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds FCC's Authority to Fine Wireless Carriers Over Data Privacy Violations

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), supporting its authority to impose fines on wireless carriers such as AT&T and Verizon for privacy violations. The decision, made with an 8-1 vote, confirms the FCC's power to levy fines through its in-house proceedings, a system challenged by the carriers on constitutional grounds. The companies argued that the FCC's process deprived them of their right to a jury trial. The FCC had fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon $47 million for selling customer location data without consent. The ruling is a significant endorsement of the FCC's enforcement capabilities, particularly in the context of data privacy and consumer protection.

US Supreme Court backs federal regulators in wins for FCC and SEC

US Supreme Court backs federal regulators in wins for FCC and SEC

By John Kruzel WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court in a pair of rulings backing the power of federal agencies has reaffirmed limits it previously imposed on government regulators but rejected bids by challengers to push those constraints into new territory.

Fifth Circuit Court Faces Constitutional Challenge Over Drug Pricing in Inflation Reduction Act

Fifth Circuit Court Faces Constitutional Challenge Over Drug Pricing in Inflation Reduction Act

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing a significant legal challenge concerning the Inflation Reduction Act's drug pricing scheme. The case, National Infusion Center Association v. Kennedy, questions the constitutionality of the Act's Medicare drug negotiation program. Critics argue that the program does not allow for genuine negotiation, as it imposes severe penalties on manufacturers who refuse to comply with government-set prices. These penalties include an excise tax that can reach up to 1900% of a drug's total U.S. revenue, effectively forcing manufacturers to either accept the government's pricing or withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid markets. The challenge also raises concerns about the nondelegation doctrine, as the Act grants extensive authority to the Department of Health and Human Services without sufficient oversight or constraints.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Generic Drugmakers

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Generic Drugmakers

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a pharmaceutical patent dispute involving Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Amarin Pharma, Inc. The ruling reversed a lower court decision, clarifying the legal standards for when claims of patent infringement can proceed against generic drugmakers using 'skinny labels' that exclude patented uses. This decision is significant as it may influence how quickly generic drugs enter the market and how they are marketed, potentially affecting drug prices and the volume of related lawsuits.

Bayer says no plans to restructure despite litigation threat

Bayer says no plans to restructure despite litigation threat

By Renee Hickman and Tom Polansek CHICAGO, June 2 (Reuters) - Bayer has no plans to spin off Monsanto, a representative said on Tuesday, even as the company faces an avalanche of lawsuits over its Roundup weedkiller.

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.

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.