1
supreme-court
supreme-court
Supreme Court Sets Late March Dates To Hear Health Care Reform Arguments
By Chris Morran on December 19, 2011 1:36 PM
51 Comments
The countdown clock is on for health care reform. This morning, the Supreme Court announced that it has set aside three dates in late March to hear arguments surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. More »
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Health Care Reform Case
By Chris Morran on November 14, 2011 11:21 AM
119 Comments
We all knew this was going to happen; it was just a matter of when. Today, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the appeals in the case to strike down — at least in part — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. More »
DOJ Petitions Supreme Court To Review Health Care Challenge
By Chris Morran on September 29, 2011 12:15 PM
43 Comments
It was inevitable that it would come to this; it was just a matter of which side would make the request first. Yesterday, the Dept. of Justice filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the nine robed ones to review the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. More »
(afagen)
Supreme Court Does Something That Makes Sense, Strikes Down Law Banning Sale Of Violent Games To Kids
By Chris Morran on June 27, 2011 12:30 PM
147 Comments
So far this session, the Supreme Court has basically guaranteed a future filled with mandatory binding arbitration, said it's completely cool for drug companies to data mine prescription records and blocked a mammoth class-action suit against Walmart. So they were due to do something that made sense. More »
Supreme Court: Data Mining Of Prescription Drug Records Is Free Speech
By Chris Morran on June 23, 2011 12:15 PM
73 Comments
In 2007, the state of Vermont passed a law forbidding the data mining of prescription drug records (i.e., which drugs are being prescribed and how frequently) for marketing purposes. But earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Vermont law interferes with drug makers' right to free speech. More »
AT&T: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Actually Benefits The Consumer
By Chris Morran on April 27, 2011 5:30 PM
105 Comments
Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that it's okay for companies to effectively preempt class-action lawsuits by putting mandatory binding arbitration clauses into their contracts with consumers. To most of us, that looks like a slap in the face to the American consumer, but the folks at AT&T want us all to know that the Supreme Court decision is actually going to benefit us all. More »
(afagen)
Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits
By Chris Morran on April 27, 2011 2:14 PM
186 Comments
In a huge blow to peeved consumers, the Supreme Court ruled earlier today that companies can block customers from joining together in a class-action suit by forcing each complaint into arbitration. More »
Supreme Court Won't Hear Health Care Law Arguments Until Lower Courts Have Had Their Chance
By Chris Morran on April 25, 2011 12:08 PM
167 Comments
Earlier this year, those fighting the Constitutionality of the national healthcare reform legislation asked for permission to skip the appeals process and bring their arguments straight to the Supreme Court. Earlier today, the Supremes denied that request. More »
Supreme Court Hears Walmart Sex Discrimination Suit Today
By Phil Villarreal on March 29, 2011 9:00 AM
26 Comments
Walmart is quite competitive this week, not only vying to move on in the Worst Company in America Sweet 16, but battling female employees in a sex discrimination court today in a case before the Supreme Court. More »
(Ninja M.)
Supreme Court Action Will Net Eminem Millions In Music Downloads Case
By Phil Villarreal on March 22, 2011 9:45 AM
45 Comments
Whether the arena be the Grammys, Oscars or freestyle rap battles, you don't want to face Eminem as an opponent. That's a lesson Universal Music Group learned when it took on the rapper in the Supreme Court, which refused to hear its appeal in a lawsuit over downloadable music. The court's refusal to hear the case, reports the Detroit Free Press, probably means Eminem won between $40 million and $50 million from the publisher. More »
(mrbill)
Supreme Court Tells Parents They Can't Sue Vaccine Makers Over Harm To Children
By Phil Villarreal on February 28, 2011 9:45 AM
106 Comments
A Supreme Court ruling protects vaccine makers from lawsuits filed by parents who believe vaccines have hurt their children. More »
Guess What? Letting Corps. Make Anonymous Unfettered Political Donations Quadrupled Contributions!
By Ben Popken on January 27, 2011 4:00 PM
112 Comments
A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could not be banned from political spending during elections through either independent expenditures from corporations' general funds or "electioneering communications," i.e. political ads. Detractors cried out that it would let loose a flood of corporate cash into elections, and they were right. A new Public Citizen report shows that outside groups quadrupled their contributions during the last mid-term election from the previous, and we will never know exactly where a good deal of the money came from. More »
Supreme Court To Hear Walmart Gender Discrimination Suit
By Chris Morran on December 6, 2010 3:42 PM
32 Comments
Given that Walmart is the country's largest private employer it's not terribly surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to have a look at the sex discrimination lawsuit filed against the retailer — the largest class-action suit of its kind in U.S. history. More »
Chicago's 28-Year-Old Handgun Ban Struck Down By Supreme Court
By Meg Marco on June 28, 2010 10:55 AM
145 Comments
The Supreme Court has decided 5-4 in favor of firearm owners, ruling that Chicago's 28-year-old gun ban is unconstitutional. More »
Court Says Arbitrators Can Decide If Arbitration Is Fair
By Marc Perton on June 23, 2010 7:07 PM
63 Comments
Think the arbitration clause in a contract is unfair? Go ahead and contest it! Of course, you shouldn't expect to win, since the Supreme Court has just ruled that it's just fine for the arbitrator to decide whether the clause is fair. More »
Supreme Court Stuffs NFL's Antitrust Protection With Goal Line Stand
By Phil Villarreal on May 25, 2010 8:01 AM
29 Comments
The NFL is an association of 32 separate businesses rather than one giant corporation with 32 branches, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, preventing the league from getting antitrust law protections it wanted. The suit originated from hatmaker American Needle, which the NFL dissed in favor of an exclusive deal with Reebok. American Needle said it was shut out thanks to a collaboration between the teams. More »
Supreme Court Makes It Easier To Sue Debt Collectors
By Chris Walters on April 26, 2010 12:15 PM
38 Comments
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that debt collectors can't use a "bona fide error" defense to avoid being sued for misinterpreting the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). In other words, if a debt collection agency makes a demand that's in violation of the Act, it can't say it didn't know any better. Well, it can, but you can go right ahead and sue. More »
Supreme Court Doesn't Know Difference Between Email And A Pager
By Ben Popken on April 20, 2010 1:32 PM
91 Comments
Better hope your technorights-based lawsuit doesn't make it all the way to the US Court of Last Resort, because these august judges might not have a freakin' clue of what's going on. Turns out they don't know the difference between email and a pager, among other things. More »
Supreme Court Guts Corporate Campaign Spending Limits
By Ben Popken on January 21, 2010 11:08 AM
151 Comments
Corporations can now spend as much as they like on ads supporting or attacking political candidates, the Supreme Court ruled today. [AP]
Maine's Supreme Court To Decide If Consumers Should Be Compensated For Hannaford Security Breach
By Chris Walters on October 12, 2009 4:09 PM
47 Comments
—>If a retailer doesn't protect your credit card data and it gets stolen, should you be compensated? Not for any unauthorized charges, which are already covered under banks' zero-liability protection, but for the time lost dealing with the problem, for the anxiety it causes, and for any future credit history/score issues it might cause? More »
