scotland news

Supreme Court Monday morning give an order From the judges’ private meeting on Friday, January 21.In addition to discussing racial issues in college admissions (covering here), the judge added two more cases to the docket for the next term. One involves the powers of federal district courts; the other tests the scope of the Clean Water Act.

judge granted Petition filed by Axon Enterprise, which makes body cameras for law enforcement. The case stems from the company’s attempt to acquire a competitor. Axon went to federal district court when the FTC raised the prospect of filing (and subsequently did) an administrative lawsuit over antitrust concerns. It argues, among other things, that the administrative lawsuit violates its due process rights because the agency has multiple roles in the lawsuit, serving as prosecutor, judge and jury. It also argues that the restriction on the removal of administrative judges who appoint FTC administrative lawsuits violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, since ALJs can only be removed for cause by the FTC Commissioner, who, in turn, can only be removed by the FTC Commissioner. President’s business.

The district court dismissed Axon’s complaint, arguing that Axon should first file its constitutional challenge in administrative proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision. Axon came to the Supreme Court in July, asking the justices to weigh in on whether the district court has the power to review a constitutional challenge to the FTC’s structure and whether the FTC’s structure is unconstitutional. The justices agreed to deal with the first issue, involving district court powers, but they declined to consider the second.

The justices also agreed to hear the case of an Idaho couple, Michael and Chantel Sackett, the second time. The Sacketts wanted to build on a parcel of land near Priest Lake, Idaho, but the EPA told them construction on the land violated the Clean Water Act because their parcel contained “navigable waters” wetlands. bill. In 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously The Sacketts could immediately challenge their order against the EPA in federal court.

The couple returned to court last fall, asking a judge to revisit their 2006 sentence. Rapanos v United States, it argued that the Clean Water Act did not regulate all wetlands but did not produce a majority for management standards. Sacketts now wants courts to pass a test run by four judges Rapanos, Wetlands can only be regulated if the wetland itself has a continuous surface water connection to the regulated waters. On Monday, the court agreed to take up the Sacketts case and decide whether the Ninth Circuit used the appropriate test to determine whether wetlands were “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act in its decision in Sacketts.

Also in Monday’s order, the justices rejected House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy Weighing the constitutionality of a House resolution that allows proxy voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lower courts refused to review McCarthy’s claims, prompting McCarthy to come to the Supreme Court last September. The justices considered McCarthy’s petition for three consecutive sessions before declining to review it without comment.

The justices again failed to act The case for web designers Who wants to opt out of Colorado’s nondiscrimination laws and refuse to create a custom website for same-sex weddings.Judges now consider 303 Creativity v. Elenis No action was taken in three consecutive meetings.

The next regular meeting of the judges will be on Friday 18 February.

this article is Originally Posted on Howe on the Court.