Reserving parts of the parade route for official seating doesn't violate the free speech rights of protesters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on Tuesday.
- Supreme Court Protest Ends in 18 Arrests
- BlackRock Pays $340K Penalty Over Separation Agreements that Restricted Tipsters
- Akin Gump Brings Back Prober to Bolster Gov't Relations Expertise
- Cadwalader to Close Houston Office in Core Practice Pivot
- DOL Releases Two Batches of Fiduciary-Rule FAQs
- Dewey Cloud Lifted for Defendant Who Found Home at Williams & Connolly
A Morrison & Foerster associate who recently completed a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship will argue Wednesday against former solicitor general Seth Waxman in a major race discrimination case that involves the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The U.S. Justice Department has a duty to enforce and defend federal laws—unless the agency can't do so in a "reasonable way," U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions said Tuesday during his confirmation hearing to be U.S. attorney general.
The U.S. Labor Department has issued back-to-back guidance, in the form of frequently asked questions, for advisors, investors and workers regarding the agency's fiduciary rule, which takes effect on April 10.
BlackRock Inc., the New York-based asset management firm, will pay $340,000 to resolve claims the company improperly used separation agreements to force employees to waive their ability to obtain any whistleblower awards. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has hit several companies in recent months for similar violations. Regulators have put companies on notice that they cannot restrict the right of an employee to recover any award for providing information to the authorities. BlackRock did not admit or deny liability.
Calls For Nomination
Missouri is now the No. 1 target of tort reformers, who this month outlined the most ambitious effort in the country at dismantling laws they claim have led to gargantuan verdicts, including a trio of double-digit awards last year against Johnson & Johnson over its baby powder.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide where a major challenge over an Obama administration clean-water rule should be waged—in a federal appellate court or the federal district courts. The justices agreed to hear claims from national companies, 29 states and agriculture-related groups that argued the litigation should take place in federal district courts and not in a federal appellate court.