On July 9, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715, holding that in assessing whether a congressional subpoena directed at personal information of the president is “related to, and in...more
7/13/2020
/ Appeals ,
Congressional Committees ,
Congressional Subpoenas ,
Donald Trump ,
Executive Branch ,
Foreign Interference in US Elections ,
Income Taxes ,
Money Laundering ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Separation of Powers ,
Tax Returns ,
Terrorism Funding ,
Trump v Deutsche Bank AG ,
Trump v Mazars USA LLP ,
Trump v Vance ,
Vacated ,
Valid Legislative Purpose
On May 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Opati v. Republic of Sudan, holding that plaintiffs who sue a foreign government under the state-sponsored-terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act can seek...more
5/24/2020
/ Al-Qaeda ,
Amended Complaints ,
Appeals ,
Bodily Injury ,
Congressional Intent ,
Exceptions ,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) ,
Opati v Republic of Sudan ,
Preenactment Conduct ,
Punitive Damages ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
State Sponsors of Terrorism ,
Sudan ,
Terrorist Acts ,
Vacated ,
Wrongful Death
On June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210, holding that the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement almost always permits a blood test without a...more
6/28/2019
/ Criminal Convictions ,
Drunk Driving ,
Exigent Circumstances ,
Fourth Amendment ,
Mitchell v Wisconsin ,
Motion To Suppress ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Search & Seizure ,
Vacated ,
Warrantless Searches ,
WI Supreme Court
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Azar v. Allina Health Services, No. 17–1484, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures when it decided to count...more
6/5/2019
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Azar v Allina Health Services ,
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ,
Hospitals ,
Low-Income Issues ,
Medicare ,
Medicare Advantage ,
Medicare Part A ,
Medicare Part C ,
Notice and Comment ,
Pay Reductions ,
Provider Payments ,
Reaffirmation ,
Retroactive Application ,
SCOTUS ,
Substantive Rule ,
Vacated
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489, holding that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order as long as there is “no fair ground of...more
6/5/2019
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) ,
Bankruptcy Code § 524(a) ,
Bankruptcy Discharge Order ,
Chapter 7 ,
Civil Contempt Orders ,
Concurrent Litigation ,
Creditors ,
Dischargeable Debts ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Money Judgment ,
Reasonable Belief Test ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
Statutory Violations ,
Taggart v Lorenzen ,
Vacated
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290, holding that the judge, not the jury, must decide whether state-law failure-to-warn claims are preempted by...more
5/22/2019
/ Agency Disapproval ,
Clear Evidence Standard ,
Failure To Warn ,
FDA Approval ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Judicial Authority ,
Jury Trial ,
Manufacturers ,
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht ,
Preemption ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Question of Fact ,
Question of Law ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
State Law Claims ,
Vacated ,
Warning Labels
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-532, holding that hunting rights in modern-day Montana and Wyoming that the Crow Tribe of Indians acquired under its 1868 treaty with...more
5/21/2019
/ Abrogation ,
Criminal Convictions ,
Expiration Date ,
Herrera v Wyoming ,
Hunting ,
Hunting & Fishing Licenses ,
Issue Preclusion ,
National Parks ,
Native American Issues ,
Occupied Lands ,
Repudiation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
States Rights ,
Treaties ,
Tribal Lands ,
Tribal Treaty Rights ,
Vacated
On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, declining to address whether the class-action settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and...more