News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Administrative Review

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Braumiller Law Group, PLLC

August 2024 Newsletter

Braumiller Law Group, PLLC on

This is the first of a three-part series about the USMCA joint review process, focusing on China, Mexico, and competing visions of a “worker-centered” trade policy. Part one introduces the USMCA joint review process and...more

Allen Matkins

Why It Is Impossible To File Articles Of Incorporation And A Statement Of Information Simultaneously And A World Without Chevron

Allen Matkins on

A California corporation begins existence upon the filing of its articles of incorporation.  Cal. Corp. Code § 200(c).  The filing of initial articles of incorporation starts a 90 day clock on the filing of the newly hatched...more

Epstein Becker & Green

SCOTUS Lets National Practitioner Data Bank Safeguards Stand

Epstein Becker & Green on

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case challenging the sufficiency of due process protections in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) and National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), effectively...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Delivers a Win for Businesses Challenging Federal Agency Actions: 4 Key Takeaways for Employers

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court recently handed a victory to employers by giving them more tools to challenge federal agencies during administrative proceedings. Employers likely know how daunting it can seem to challenge federal officials...more

Stevens & Lee

The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Axon v. FTC

Stevens & Lee on

In a prior post, we discussed Axon v. Federal Trade Commission and its core question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court (Court): whether parties seeking to undertake a transaction subject to FTC review and seeking to...more

Robinson+Cole ERISA Claim Defense Blog

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review Of Significant Second Circuit Ruling On The Scope Of California’s Anti-Discretion Statute And The...

Robinson+Cole ERISA Claim Defense Blog on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review a significant decision of the Second Circuit which (1) clarified the scope of California’s statutory ban on discretionary clauses in life and disability insurance contracts,...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

The Administrative State Under Attack: Potentially Far Reaching Implications of Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear Challenge to FTC...

Proskauer - Minding Your Business on

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that courts must defer to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. But last year, the Supreme Court stripped the FTC of its ability to seek...more

Jones Day

PTAB Details Interim Procedure for Requesting Arthrex Director Review

Jones Day on

On June 29th, the PTO issued an initial protocol for requesting Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision according to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision.  This Arthrex protocol is similar to the current procedure...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Garland v. Ming Dai

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Garland v. Ming Dai, overruling the Ninth Circuit’s longstanding “deemed-true-or-credible” rule that required reviewing courts to treat noncitizens’ testimony as credible and...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides United States v. Palomar-Santiago

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Palomar-Santiago, No. 20-437, holding that each of the statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack against a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide