Today on Legalese we return to a case I discussed last January about Home Equity Theft and the Supreme Court case challenging its constitutionality.
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion that struck down Home Equity Theft.
The case I’m talking about is Tyler v Hennepin County.
we cover the why and the how of this Supreme Court opinion in favor of the Plaintiff, Geraldine Tyler and what some of the likely ramifications of this decision will be when it comes to the government and Takings Clause liabilities.
This is the first video in my annual Supreme Court Wrap Up. Today we will be revisiting a pair of cases from my Supreme Court Roundup last fall. These cases are
“Twitter v Taamneh” and
“Gonzalez v Google.”
The Supreme Court handed down two unanimous opinions on May 18th 2023 for both cases stating that the claims against Twitter & Google in regards to the Anti-Terrorism Act §2333 and the Communications and Decency Act §230 do not amount to “aiding and abetting” in a manner that would make these platforms liable for damages following a terrorist attack.
Today on Legalese, we are going to be looking at a statement put out by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch as part of the Court’s procedural decision in the recent case of Arizona v Mayorkas. This decision dealt with the abuse of civil liberties under emergency powers, specifically through the usurpation of the so-called “Title 42 Emergency Orders” that were issued to help prevent the spread of Covid-19, that were usurped by several different state governments and federal administrative agencies for their own designs. Trying to keep these emergency powers in place indefinitely because of a new imagined crisis that they were never meant to apply to.
Today On Legalese we have the second video in my series about the Supreme Court’s upcoming case that will reconsider chevron deference. Do their actions constitute some kind of usurpation of power and are they an attack on democracy itself? We discuss this while debunking an article from Vox that claims both of those things are correct. We also look at the real history of administrative law in regards to Chevron Deference
Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the Supreme Court’s grant for judicial review on the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case is controversial because of the distinct (though highly unlikely) possibility that it may see Chevron Deference overruled entirely.
Chevron Deference is perhaps the most prolific legal doctrine in the whole of administrative law. This doctrine arose from a landmark Supreme Court case known as:
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837.
Chevron was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency’s interpretation of a statute which it administers.
We have discussed the Chevron case here on the show before as well as it’s doctrine of Chevron Deference.
This case is again worth discussing because for Chevron Deference supporters and detractors alike are both being sold two very different, but equally fallacious narratives about what the potential outcome of this case may be and the impact that they claim it will have on the entire system of federal regulations and administrative law.