Difference between revisions of "Supreme Court 2012 Term"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(expand description)
(added another)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
On June 25, the last official day of the 2011 Term, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] granted cert in 10 new cases for the 2012 Term:
+
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has "granted cert" (agreed to hear and decide)several dozen cases for the 2012 Term:
  
 
*the timing of [[Medicare]] reimbursement, ''Sebelius v. Auburn Regional'' (11-1231)
 
*the timing of [[Medicare]] reimbursement, ''Sebelius v. Auburn Regional'' (11-1231)
 
*possible immunity for local government from [[antitrust]] laws, ''FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health'' (11-1160)
 
*possible immunity for local government from [[antitrust]] laws, ''FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health'' (11-1160)
 
*whether a case with a claim under the [[Fair Labor Standards Act]] (FLSA) becomes moot when defendants offer satisfaction on all of the lone plaintiff's claims, ''Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk'' (11-1059)
 
*whether a case with a claim under the [[Fair Labor Standards Act]] (FLSA) becomes moot when defendants offer satisfaction on all of the lone plaintiff's claims, ''Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk'' (11-1059)
 +
*''Clapper v. Amnesty International USA'', to decide whether the human rights group has Article III standing to seek prospective equitable relief against wiretapping international communications under 50 U.S.C. 1881a
  
 
(add to list)
 
(add to list)

Revision as of 20:06, June 30, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has "granted cert" (agreed to hear and decide)several dozen cases for the 2012 Term:

  • the timing of Medicare reimbursement, Sebelius v. Auburn Regional (11-1231)
  • possible immunity for local government from antitrust laws, FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health (11-1160)
  • whether a case with a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) becomes moot when defendants offer satisfaction on all of the lone plaintiff's claims, Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk (11-1059)
  • Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, to decide whether the human rights group has Article III standing to seek prospective equitable relief against wiretapping international communications under 50 U.S.C. 1881a

(add to list)

See also