Courts

Apple is facing similar challenges across the country and in Europe.

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 27 left open the possibility of judges broadly blocking Trump’s policies through class actions.

The New Jersey AG sees broad relief in the form of nationwide blocks as still possible within the Supreme Court’s limits on universal injunctions.

A federal appeals court found the internet service provider was liable for subscribers’ copyright infringement because it failed to terminate their accounts.

States or nonprofits could still pursue broad relief through legal avenues such as class-action lawsuits.

Similar lawsuits have been filed by the DOJ in Chicago, Colorado, and New Jersey, targeting those jurisdictions’ sanctuary policies.

The new ruling came after the high court upheld a Tennessee ban on transgender procedures for minors.

The Supreme Court’s decision keeps a ruling from a lower court in place that may define how airline partnership agreements are viewed by federal regulators.

Vice President JD Vance and other petitioners say the limits violate the U.S. Constitution.

The president is authorized to remove executive officers ‘at will,’ the court said.

The Supreme Court said universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

Heated rhetoric about judges ‘not terribly helpful,’ Roberts said, warning it can fuel violence.

He’s pleaded guilty in a separate state case to 191 counts of corpse abuse.

The court voted 6–3 to uphold a law that fines websites if they fail to verify the age of users.

The court allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons using LGBT-themed books.

By limiting the ability of judges to issue universal blocks, the court’s ruling is expected to affect other cases contesting Trump administration policies.

The ACLU filed a separate class action lawsuit in a different federal district court.

The court declined urgent relief, noting lack of imminent harm but acknowledging data privacy concerns.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday finished handing down its opinions for the 2024–2025 term.

Apple is facing similar challenges across the country and in Europe.

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 27 left open the possibility of judges broadly blocking Trump’s policies through class actions.

The New Jersey AG sees broad relief in the form of nationwide blocks as still possible within the Supreme Court’s limits on universal injunctions.

A federal appeals court found the internet service provider was liable for subscribers’ copyright infringement because it failed to terminate their accounts.

States or nonprofits could still pursue broad relief through legal avenues such as class-action lawsuits.

Similar lawsuits have been filed by the DOJ in Chicago, Colorado, and New Jersey, targeting those jurisdictions’ sanctuary policies.

The new ruling came after the high court upheld a Tennessee ban on transgender procedures for minors.

The Supreme Court’s decision keeps a ruling from a lower court in place that may define how airline partnership agreements are viewed by federal regulators.

Vice President JD Vance and other petitioners say the limits violate the U.S. Constitution.

The president is authorized to remove executive officers ‘at will,’ the court said.

The Supreme Court said universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

Heated rhetoric about judges ‘not terribly helpful,’ Roberts said, warning it can fuel violence.

He’s pleaded guilty in a separate state case to 191 counts of corpse abuse.

The court voted 6–3 to uphold a law that fines websites if they fail to verify the age of users.

The court allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons using LGBT-themed books.

By limiting the ability of judges to issue universal blocks, the court’s ruling is expected to affect other cases contesting Trump administration policies.

The ACLU filed a separate class action lawsuit in a different federal district court.

The court declined urgent relief, noting lack of imminent harm but acknowledging data privacy concerns.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday finished handing down its opinions for the 2024–2025 term.