Emotions – and tensions – ran high at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case asking whether a federal tribal law allows a biological father to regain custody of a child who had been legally adopted by a couple under state law.
Deciding where the preemptive effect of federal rules governing drug manufacturing ends and states’ ability to impose liability on drug makers begins has never been an easy task — not even for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
At a time when class certification has become tougher under recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, securities plaintiffs scored a major win when the justices ruled that materiality need not be proven at the certification stage of fraud-on-the-market claims.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are trying to dissect the language of a poorly worded federal statute that protects drivers’ personal information from misuse in an effort to determine whether lawyers broke the law in looking for potential class action plaintiffs.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed divided over whether the federal Medicaid Act preempts a North Carolina law authorizing the state to recoup as much as one third of any medical malpractice jury award or settlement, regardless of how much of the award was designated for medical expenses.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court this week considered whether the Class Action Fairness Act allows plaintiffs to avoid removal to federal court by promising to seek less than the monetary damages threshold.
Prior convictions for violent felonies can lead to a significant sentencing enhancement under federal law, but what evidence can sentencing courts consider to determine if a felony is violent enough to trigger heightened punishment?
Can an employer, faced with a purported class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, avoid litigation by immediately offering a settlement to the sole plaintiff before a class is certified?
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tussled on Wednesday over the issue of whether a plain error sentencing appeal must be decided according to the law in effect at the time of sentencing or at the time of appeal.
The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider eliminating the government’s most potent weapon against racial discrimination at polling places since the 1960s. The court acted three days after a diverse coalition of voters propelled President Barack Obama to a second term in the White House.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tackled a tough question on Tuesday, considering what consequences result under the Double Jeopardy Clause from an acquittal that was caused by a judge’s error.
Oral arguments in two Fourth Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday focused on a common question: just what does a dog’s nose know?
Sometimes employment litigation is complicated, so much so that the parties and judges can’t even agree on which court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a high-stakes dispute between businesses and human rights groups over accountability for foreign atrocities.
Did Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s wife Jane play a role in his his decision in the health care law ruling?
So if the Supreme Court takes public opinion into consideration — as some pundits assert was the case in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s switched vote on the health care decision — what does that mean for the upcoming cases involving same-sex marriage rights?
Have you ever had a coworker who rubbed you the wrong way, creating a tense atmosphere in the office? Well imagine if you are a Supreme Court justice in that situation; apparently the tension on the bench is so thick you can cut it with a scalpel.
In the days since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the federal health care law, Supreme Court watchers have been posing a new question about the Court’s deliberations in the case: Did Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. change his vote?
As the nation awaits Thursday morning’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the federal health care law, a new pastime has emerged: predicting which justice will author the landmark opinion.
The Supreme Court is meeting Monday to issue opinions in some of the handful of cases that remain unresolved.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that people who committed crack cocaine crimes before more lenient penalties took effect and received their prison sentence afterward should benefit from the new rules.
The Confrontation Clause does not bar an expert from testifying at a criminal trial that a DNA profile produced by an outside laboratory matched the defendant’s state lab DNA profile, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a fractured opinion.
Pending amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Criminal Procedure are being reviewed by lawmakers in the House and Senate.
The Supreme Court has ruled that sales representatives for pharmaceutical companies do not qualify for overtime pay under federal law, a big victory for the drug industry.
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a rape conviction over objections that the defendant did not have the chance to question the reliability of the DNA evidence that helped convict him.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that three families cannot sue a mortgage company for allegedly charging them a loan discount fee without giving them a lower interest rate.
To err is human. But when the nation’s highest court receives erroneous information in a case – and even cites the flawed data in its opinion – what, if anything, should the court do about it?
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court took up a complicated bankruptcy case Monday, parsing the language of the Bankruptcy Code to determine if a Chapter 11 debtor must give a secured creditor the right to credit bid items being sold at auction.
A private lawyer can claim qualified immunity from a suit under §1983 over his actions in representing a public employer in an internal affairs investigation, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision.
A criminal defendant could assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with respect to plea deals that his lawyer failed to communicate to him before they expired, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4.
