#WorkforceWednesday®: After the Block - What’s Next for Employers and Non-Competes? - Spilling Secrets Podcast - Employment Law This Week®
States Sue SEC in Ongoing Fight Over Reg BI
Ohio AG Dave Yost and Kansas AG Kris Kobach have completed briefing on their emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the EPA’s “Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate...more
Ten days ahead of her self-imposed deadline, Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, setting aside the Federal Trade...more
The week of June 23, 2024, in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in a 5-4 decision that if a federal agency fails to provide a reasoned response to comments raised during the rulemaking...more
As we previously addressed, on April 24, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) voted to finalize its rule prohibiting businesses from entering into or enforcing non-compete clauses in nearly all agreements with workers...more
Evaluating a broad spectrum of challenges raised by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the SEC failed to provide a sufficient...more
On Friday, April 7, the Northern District of Texas issued a decision blocking the prescribing and dispensing of mifepristone nationwide. The court held that plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a request from a group of 19 GOP AGs to extend Title 42 immigration authority that was set to expire December 21. The Title 42 restrictions were put in place by the Trump administration in March...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
A New York court has restored anti-discrimination protections for transgender patients under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Walker et al. v. Azar et al., No. 20-cv-2834 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020). Section 1557 of the ACA...more
On July 28, 2020, only six weeks after the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, DHS issued a...more
On June 18, 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration's termination of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program violated Federal law....more
Court Decision - On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decision in 2017 to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the...more
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts (the “DACA Opinion”), the Supreme Court has concluded that the rescission of the DACA program by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was arbitrary and capricious and...more
The Trump administration has already announced its goal to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy commenced on June 15, 2012 by President Obama within the next six months post the decision of the U.S....more
In a landmark 5–4 decision issued June 18, the US Supreme Court held that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful agency action....more
Breaking the hearts of conservatives for the second time in a week, Chief Justice John Roberts penned a 5-4 majority decision striking down the Trump Administration’s 2017 rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood...more
As previously reported by Mintz, last week the U.S. Supreme Court upheld three lower court rulings, holding that President Trump’s 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court allows DACA to proceed on the grounds that DHS did not meet the regulatory Administrative Procedures Act requirements in rescinding the program. The Court did not rule on the legality of...more
- The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Trump administration did not properly terminate the DACA program under the APA. - The DACA program is restored to its full form, as it existed prior to the rescission in 2017. -...more
On Thursday, June 18, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump Administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, known as...more
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in DHS v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, effectively blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) attempt to end...more
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 18-587; Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588; Wolf v. Vidal, No. 18-589: In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood...more
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on June 18, 2020, finding that the Department of Homeland Security’s actions in retracting the immigration relief program...more
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) choice to rescind the immigration program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). The...more
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, holding that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood...more