The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments copertina

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

Di: Brad Neal
Ascolta gratuitamente

3 mesi a soli 0,99 €/mese

Dopo 3 mesi, 9,99 €/mese. Si applicano termini e condizioni.

A proposito di questo titolo
Episodi
  • Trump, President of U.S. v. Cook

    Trump, President of U.S. v. Cook
    Jan 21 2026
    Trump, President of U.S. v. Cook | 01/21/26 | Docket #: 25A312 25A312 TRUMP V. COOK DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 2654786 THE APPLICATION FOR STAY PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO THE COURT IS DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT IN JANUARY 2026. JURISDICTION NOTED 10/1/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    Meno di 1 minuto
  • M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund

    M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund
    Jan 20 2026
    M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 23-1209 23-1209 M & K EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LLC V. TRUSTEES OF THE IAM PENSION FUND DECISION BELOW: 92 F.4th 316 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act imposes "withdrawal liability" when an employer withdraws from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan. This withdrawal liabilty covers the employer's share of the plan's underfunding. Because a plan's amount of underfunding hinges on projections about its projected liabilities and assets decades into the future, withdrawal liability computations are partly a product of actuarial assumptions about anticipated interest rates and other predictions. Withdrawal liability must be computed "as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the employer withdraws." E.g., 29 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2)(E)(i). The question presented is: Whether 29 U.S.C. 1391's instruction to compute withdrawal liability "as of the end of the plan year" requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions to which its actuary subscribed at the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after the end of the year . LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-7157, 22-7158, 23-7028 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER 29 U. S. C. § 1391 ’ S INSTRUCTION TO COMPUTE WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY “ AS OF THE END OF THE PLAN YEAR ” REQUIRES THE PLAN TO BASE THE COMPUTATION ON THE ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS TO WHICH ITS ACTUARY SUBSCRIBED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, OR ALLOWS THE PLAN TO USE DIFFERENT ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE ADOPTED AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR. Order of July 3, 2025: The order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari is amended as follows. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER 29 U. S. C. §1391 ’ S INSTRUCTION TO COMPUTE WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY “ AS OF THE END OF THE PLAN YEAR ” REQUIRES THE PLAN TO BASE THE COMPUTATION ON THE ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, OR ALLOWS THE PLAN TO USE DIFFERENT ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE ADOPTED AFTER, BUT BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS OF, THE END OF THE YEAR. CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    Meno di 1 minuto
  • Wolford v. Lopez

    Wolford v. Lopez
    Jan 20 2026
    Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    Meno di 1 minuto
Ancora nessuna recensione