Supreme Court refuses to overturn 'Auer deference,' precedent that strengthens the power of government regulators

  • 📰 CNBC
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 26 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 14%
  • Publisher: 72%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

Supreme Court refuses to overturn rule that strengthens the power of government regulators

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to overturn a precedent that strengthened the power of government regulators in a closely watched case that could have had broad ramifications for federal agencies.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to overturn a precedent that strengthens the power of government regulators in a closely watched case that could have had broad ramifications for federal agencies. Veterans Affairs argued that under its regulations it is only required to provide benefits to Kisor dating back to 2006. That interpretation was considered binding under Auer.This case has united business, labor and immigration groups. But some see a right wing attack on government regulation

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 12. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down stiff firearms penaltiesConservative Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the U.S. Supreme Court&39;s four liberal members on Monday in striking down as unconstitutionally vague a law imposing stiff criminal sentences for people convicted of certain crimes involving firearms. In the 5-4 ruling, with Gorsuch&39;s fellow conservatives Must of been the firearms bit. is gorsuch the new kennedy? Was a crime with a firearm violent if the weapon was not discharged? The distinction makes a difference with respect for the time to be served.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »

Supreme Court sides with designer over allegedly offensive trademarkNEW: Supreme Court sides with designer who sought to trademark allegedly offensive term but was blocked by a federal law prohibiting registration of 'immoral or scandalous' ideas. MORE: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with a designer over an allegedly offensive trademark. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. Another beer please And that’s free speech, it’s a wrap.
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »

U.S. Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump steel tariffsThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to President Donald Trump&39;s tariffs on imported steel brought by an industry group that argued that a key part of the law under which he imposed the duties violates the U.S. Constitution. The justices declined to hear the American Institute Democrats can no longer get their way by using the Courts.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »

Supreme Court to review insurers’ Obamacare claims for $12 billionThe Supreme Court will decide whether insurance companies can collect $12 billion from the federal government to cover their losses in the early years of the health care law championed by President Obama. Poor health insurance companies. No one ever thinks of their feelings. Wow, socialism for corporations again! What losses?
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »

Supreme Court says law imposing extra prison time for ‘crime of violence’ is too vagueThe court ruled for two Dallas men who were convicted of robbing several convenience stores and then were given an extra 25 years in prison for carrying a sawed-off shotgun during the crime. Good SCOTUS (in the time of Trump) comes through again... even with the reactionary side of the Bench!
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »

Supreme Court allows trademark for F-word soundalike clothing brandUS Supreme Court strikes down a century-old provision of federal law that bans registration of proposed trademarks that are 'scandalous' or 'immoral,” allowing trademark protection of a word that sounds like the F-word. Another beer please So who wants to take a Broadcast obscenity case to the Supreme Court? This cracks the door… About bucking time
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »