Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973), is a ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939 does not violate the First Amendment, and its implementing regulations are not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The Supreme Court agreed on July 2, 2024, to review the case, [4] and it heard oral arguments on January 15, 2025. Besides the parties to the case, the Biden administration was given time to present arguments challenging the Fifth Circuit's ruling, neither in support or opposition to the law, but to argue the Fifth should have evaluated the law ...
The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California.It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, [1] but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. [2]
Orrin Grant Hatch (March 22, 1934 – April 23, 2022) was an American attorney and politician who served as a United States senator from Utah from 1977 to 2019. Hatch's 42-year Senate tenure made him the longest-serving Republican U.S. senator in history, overtaking Ted Stevens, until Chuck Grassley surpassed him in 2023.
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes.
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a bid by fuel producers to challenge California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law in ...
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.
In 2014, the Supreme Court in Paroline v. United States analyzed the meaning of the “full amount of the victim’s losses” definition in the then-current 1996 version of 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b). [2] The defendant in the case was convicted of possessing child pornography featuring the victim, and the victim was attempting to recover restitution ...