Nathan D. Willner, Esq.’s Post

A landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. "The Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling overturning the 1984 Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council case, striking down a previous decision that granted federal agencies immensely broad power to draw up regulations without congressional approval. The Court ruled in both Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce — two nearly identical cases — that regulatory agencies will no longer be able to fill in the blanks of vague legislation." This ruling is a principled originalist decision that upholds the doctrine of "separation of powers" that is imbedded in our Constitution. Simply put, the Constitution says that only Congress can MAKE law. Administrative agencies, which are part of the Executive branch, cannot make law, it can only enforce the law. This decision now requires the legislature to do what it is authorized to do, MAKE law, and it may NOT delegate that duty to an Executive administrative agency. This is a repudiation of the "progressive" idea that the people's democratically elected representatives, i.e. - the legislators, are so benighted that we need so-called "experts" (unelected administrative agents) to tell us how we ought to live. https://lnkd.in/gvXVQ5mm

Wondering about the latest Supreme Court decisions on the authority of agencies to issue regulations? Here’s a great NYT article explaining the history of the “administrative state” and how we got to today. #administrativestate #chevrondoctrine

BERSIH refers to a statement by YB Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) yesterday that the initiative to separate the powers of the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor will be implemented in phases over two years after a study in three countries. Based on this development, BERSIH is concerned that this major reform agenda may be delayed until the eve of the next general election, and may not even be completed by the current Unity Government's term. 🔗 Click the link below to read more https://lnkd.in/g-52wxHt

Federal Rule 702 is officially amended to clarify that judges, not juries, evaluate the sufficiency of expert evidence. States are now moving to adopt similar amendments. Visit www.dontsaydaubert.com to learn more about the new federal amendment and to get involved in reforming your state’s rules.

interesting question - who can enforce the 14th amendment to the US constitution? the #scotus had something to say today but not very enlightening ..my understanding is laws are made by Congress, and implemented by the executive. Then why do people think Congress needs to act? it is not the job of Congress to legislate specific cases..the 14th amendment was passed by Congress, their job is done. Now it is up to the executive branch to implement the law, isn't it ? which means the Attorney General ? what am I missing here?

Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal - Violation of principles of natural justice - The High Court observed that the appellate authority failed to appropriately apply Supreme Court precedents for condoning the delay. Moreover, deciding the matter on merits without due consideration of relevant judgments was deemed unjustified. http://dlvr.it/T58Dr0 #GST #Highlights #TaxLaws #TaxTMI

An ICAS - The Professional Body of CAs article taking a look at a recent Court of Session judgment, which provides some useful clarification and guidance around concluding an administration via a court winding-up and the court’s powers in relation to advance remuneration requests. #insolvency ➡ https://lnkd.in/e4w6KA2S

🚨 BREAKING: President Biden is endorsing three reforms to the Supreme Court: 1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office 2. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices 3. Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court Kyle Griffin X Vice President Harris endorses the Supreme Court reforms laid out by President Biden: "…President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms – from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House." President Biden: "This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one."

A Supreme Court decision (and dissent) that clearly draw the lines between principled originalism under our Constitution and advocacy for an all-powerful administrative state unconstrained by law. The 7th Amendment plainly requires a jury trial in all lawsuits. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought to charge the defendant civil penalties for fraud and, in doing so, acted as prosecutor and judge (no jury allowed). The Court said: “A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator.” Simple enough, but not for the three "progressive" members of the Court. In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor weaseled her way around the 7th Amendment by claiming "There are good reasons for Congress to set up a scheme like the SEC’s. It may yield important benefits over jury trials in federal court, such as greater efficiency and expertise, transparency and reasoned decision making, as well as uniformity, predictability, and greater political accountability. . ." "Sotomayor complains that the Court’s decision “prescribes artificial constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like.” No, it reiterates constitutional constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like. And “must” is a key word there. This stuff isn’t optional." "[Justice] Gorsuch writes: “The agency is free to pursue all of its charges against Mr. Jarkesy. And it is free to pursue them exactly as it had always done until 2010: In a court, before a judge, and with a jury.” You know, as the Constitution says. Thank goodness we don’t live in a world where Sotomayor’s dissent, with which the other two progressive justices agreed, is the opinion of the Court. Jarkesy makes clear that without originalism, there are practically no limits to government power." https://lnkd.in/gbprF53z

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Fischer v. United States, significantly interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The ruling clarifies that the statute pertains primarily to evidence tampering, limiting its application to those actions that impair the integrity or availability of records and documents for an official proceeding. This interpretation raises important implications for other January 6th defendants, as it may narrow the scope of charges that can be successfully prosecuted under this provision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's concurring opinion suggests that interference with Congressional procedures could still carry weight, potentially allowing some prosecutions to proceed. As legal experts and policymakers digest this ruling, the ramifications for future cases could reshape the way obstruction laws are enforced. Click here to learn more: https://lnkd.in/ev5VWfiG #supremecourt #evidencetampering #obstruction