Tag

Standing

All articles tagged with #standing

politics5 days ago•9 min saved

Experts question legality and governance of Trump's $1.8B anti-weaponization fund

The DOJ’s plan to pay nearly $1.8 billion from the Judgment Fund to those alleging weaponization of the legal system has triggered questions about its legality, eligibility criteria, and oversight. Some experts say the fund can be legally authorized under the Judgment Fund, while others warn it bypasses Congress and lacks transparent rules, risking abuse. Lawmakers from both parties are pushing for safeguards, and lawsuits question who has standing to challenge the arrangement.

via CBS News|

#anti-weaponization-fund #congressional-oversight #judgment-fund

courts1 month ago•22 min saved

5th Circuit lifts injunction, allowing Texas SB4 to take effect

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction blocking Texas SB4, a 2023 immigration law that lets state police arrest people suspected of illegally entering the country, after ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue; the ruling does not address the law’s merits, and it’s unclear when enforcement would begin. Texas officials celebrate the decision as a win for public safety, while opponents warn it could worsen profiling and conflict with federal immigration authority.

via The Texas Tribune|

#courts #fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals #paxton

law1 month ago•2 min saved

Judge Dismisses Trump Administration Climate Preemption Suit Against Hawaii

A federal judge in Honolulu dismissed the Trump administration’s bid to block Hawaii from suing oil companies over climate change, ruling the government lacked standing and that its claims rested on abstract, speculative harm; the suit was dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling.

via The New York Times|

#climate-change #climate-litigation #hawaii

health1 month ago•7 min saved

Court Dismisses Anti-Hemp Suit Over Medicare CBD Coverage for Lack of Standing

Federal health officials asked a court to dismiss a lawsuit by anti-cannabis groups led by SAM and a Medicare patient challenging CMS’s voluntary hemp-derived products coverage under Medicare, arguing the plaintiffs lack Article III standing and that the BEI component is not a new entitlement. The policy allows hemp-derived products (CBD) with up to 0.3% delta-9 THC and up to 3 mg total THC per serving, and is funded by providers up to a $500 annual cap per beneficiary. Plaintiffs contend the program diverts resources and harms their goals, but the government says there is no injury and no rulemaking required for this voluntary model. The case may seek to add MMJ as plaintiffs, a TRO was previously denied, and the matter continues to hinge on federal hemp vs. marijuana policy.

via Marijuana Moment|

#cbd #health #hemp

politics2 months ago•4 min saved

California Egg Rules Survive Trump Challenge in Federal Court

A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration's bid to invalidate California's egg‑production laws (AB 1437, Prop 2, Prop 12), ruling the DOJ lacked standing to sue and warning against using federal courts for political ends; the ruling preserves California's egg-regulation regime for now, though the administration could refile.

via Politico|

#california #egg-production #politics

law4 months ago•2 min saved

Supreme Court revives GOP challenge to Illinois mail-in ballot rule

The Supreme Court revived Republican Rep. Mike Bost’s challenge to Illinois’s rule allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within two weeks after the election, in a 7-2 decision that focused on standing rather than the constitutionality of the rule. Chief Justice Roberts said candidates have a concrete interest in counting rules and election integrity, while Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented, arguing against granting candidates special standing. The case, which lower courts had dismissed for lack of injury, reflects ongoing partisan battles over mail‑in voting and late-arriving ballots.

via The Guardian|

#election-law #illinois #law

politics4 months ago•4 min saved

Supreme Court Lets Challenge to Illinois’ Late-Ballot Rule Move Forward

SCOTUS, in a 7-2 ruling authored by Chief Justice Roberts, revived Rep. Michael Bost’s challenge to Illinois’ 14-day late-ballot rule, holding that a candidate has a concrete stake and standing to challenge the vote-counting rules. The case is sent back to lower courts for further proceedings; the court did not rule on the law’s legality. Justice Barrett concurred with the outcome but not the reasoning, while Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented, warning of broad implications for election litigation.

via CBS News|

#ballot-counting #election-law #illinois

us-politics4 months ago•6 min saved

Court lets candidates challenge late-ballot counting

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that candidates can sue in advance over vote-counting practices, allowing Rep. Mike Bost to challenge Illinois’ rule that counts ballots postmarked by Election Day if they arrive within two weeks. The decision resolves standing for election disputes—being a candidate suffices—without deciding whether late-arriving ballots violate federal law; Justices Barrett and Kagan concurred, Jackson and Sotomayor dissented, and Mississippi mail-ballot cases remain on the docket.

via Politico|

#ballot-counting #elections #standing

politics4 months ago•312 min saved

Supreme Court opens door to more election challenges with absentee-ballot ruling

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, revived Republican Rep. Michael Bost’s challenge to Illinois’ rule allowing mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within two weeks. The court held that candidates have a concrete interest in how votes are counted, potentially broadening standing for election-rule challenges and signaling more post-election litigation; lower courts had dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Dissenters warned the ruling could destabilize elections by inviting chaos and more lawsuits after contested elections.

via CNN|

#absentee-ballots #election-law #politics

law11 months ago•3 min saved

Supreme Court Allows Fuel Companies to Challenge California’s Emission Standards

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that fuel producers can challenge California's ability to set its own vehicle emissions standards under a federal waiver, focusing on whether they have standing to sue, without addressing the legality of the standards themselves. The decision emphasizes the potential harm to manufacturers from California's regulations, which aim to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change, but leaves the merits of the case open for future litigation.

via The New York Times|

#california-emissions #climate-change #fuel-producers

law-and-politics2 years ago•2 min saved

"Supreme Court Justices Express Skepticism on FDA Accountability in Abortion Pill Arguments"

The Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the FDA's relaxed regulations on the abortion pill, with legal experts suggesting the case may be dismissed due to lack of standing. Justices appeared skeptical of the FDA's lack of accountability for any harms caused by the pill, with Justice Alito questioning the FDA's infallibility and whether anyone can sue in such cases. The questioning may indicate the justices' thinking on who has standing in such matters, with implications for future legal challenges.

via Fox News|

#abortion-pill #fda #law-and-politics

law-and-politics2 years ago•5 min saved

"Supreme Court's Impact on Abortion Medication Rules Under Scrutiny"

The Supreme Court appears likely to uphold access to the abortion medication mifepristone, with a consensus emerging during arguments that the abortion opponents challenging the FDA's approval lack legal standing to sue. Justices, including conservative appointees, expressed skepticism about the opponents' standing, signaling a potential dismissal of the case. The decision, expected by early summer, could have significant political and practical implications, affecting access to medication abortions and telehealth visits. Abortion rights activists rallied outside the court, and the case's outcome may impact future abortion-related regulations.

via The Associated Press|

#abortion #fda #law-and-politics

law-and-politics2 years ago•9 min saved

Supreme Court Justices Debate Abortion Pill Suit and Women's Health

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of federal regulations allowing the distribution of the abortion drug mifepristone through the mail, with a focus on whether the anti-abortion doctors association that brought the case had standing to sue. Conservative justices questioned the standing of the group, suggesting skepticism, while the case could potentially roll back access to mifepristone and impact telehealth visits for abortion pills. The lawsuit, originally filed in Texas, has sparked debate over the safety and accessibility of mifepristone, with a ruling expected in late June.

via HuffPost|

#abortion #fda #law-and-politics

law-and-politics2 years ago•1 min saved

"Supreme Court Justices Express Doubt Over Effort to Limit Abortion Pill Access"

The U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of a medical group's challenge to FDA regulations on abortion pills, questioning the group's standing to bring the suit and expressing concerns about the broader implications for the FDA's regulatory power. The case raises issues beyond abortion rights, delving into the FDA's authority to approve drugs and ensure their safety.

via NPR|

#abortion-pills #fda-regulations #law-and-politics

jurisprudence2 years ago•8 min saved

Unveiling the Reality of Texas' Abortion Laws: Amanda Zurawski's Perspective

Texas resident Kate Cox, facing a nonviable pregnancy that posed a threat to her future fertility, sought an abortion through a court's good-faith exception to Texas' restrictive abortion laws. However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, threatening criminal sanctions against Cox's physicians and hospitals if they aided in the abortion. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox's physician's belief did not meet the state's standard for a good-faith exception. Amanda Zurawski, the lead plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit challenging Texas' abortion laws, and her lawyer, Jamie Levitt, discuss the standing issue and the state's attempts to evade judicial review while showing disdain for women facing pregnancy crises.

via Slate|

#abortion #jurisprudence #lawsuit