Claims

Judiciary To Remain Open Until Feb. 5

by

In a recent announcement, the Judiciary confirmed its commitment to remaining operational until February 5, despite potential funding challenges. This decision comes in light of the impending lapse in appropriations set for January 30, which could affect various federal operations. The Judiciary has outlined its plans to utilize existing court fee balances and other non-appropriation dependent funds to maintain its essential functions and services during this period. Operational Continuity Amid Funding Uncertainty The Judiciary will continue its paid operations through February 4, ensuring that most proceedings and deadlines will proceed as scheduled. However, there may … Read more

Justices to Consider $5 Million Verdict Against Trump

by

The ongoing legal battles involving former President Donald Trump have captured the attention of the public and the judiciary alike. As the Supreme Court prepares for its next conference, the focus will be on a civil suit verdict that resulted in a substantial $5 million award against Trump, stemming from allegations made by E. Jean Carroll. This case not only highlights issues of accountability but also raises questions about the intersection of law and politics in America. Background of the Case E. Jean Carroll, a journalist and former advice columnist, filed her lawsuit in 2022, … Read more

Trump Administration Urges Supreme Court to Find California’s Redistricting Map Unconstitutional

by

The Trump administration has made a significant legal move by urging the Supreme Court to block California’s newly adopted congressional map. This map, approved by voters in November, has been characterized by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The administration’s filing highlights the contentious nature of redistricting in the United States, especially as it relates to the balance of power in Congress. Background of the Redistricting Challenge The legal challenge arises against the backdrop of California’s efforts to create five new Democratic congressional seats. This initiative was reportedly a response … Read more

Justices Doubt the Necessity of Outdated Assumptions in Pension Plan Assessments

by

During the recent oral arguments in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund, the Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism regarding the requirement for actuaries to rely on outdated assumptions when calculating costs associated with leaving a multiemployer pension plan. This case raises significant questions about the methodologies used in pension fund assessments, particularly in the context of defined-benefit plans, which are often more complex than their defined-contribution counterparts. The Nature of Multiemployer Pension Plans Multiemployer pension plans are arrangements where several employers from the same industry collaborate to provide retirement benefits … Read more