Federal

Justices Clarify Restitution Requirements for Federal Convicts

by

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the implications of the ex post facto clause in relation to restitution obligations under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). The case, Ellingburg v. United States, centered on whether the requirement for Holsey Ellingburg to pay restitution could be altered retroactively after the commission of his crimes but before his sentencing. The unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, underscored the constitutional protections against retroactive increases in punishment, establishing a clear boundary for federal criminal proceedings. Understanding the Ex Post Facto Clause The ex post facto clause … Read more

SCOTUS today for Wednesday, January 21

by

This morning, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a significant case concerning President Donald Trump’s decision to terminate Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The case has garnered considerable attention due to its implications for executive power and the independence of federal agencies. As the hearing unfolds, we will provide live updates starting at 9:30 a.m. EST, allowing legal experts and the public to engage with the proceedings in real-time. Latest Opinions from the Court On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court released opinions on three argued cases: Berk v. Choy, Ellingburg v. United States, and … Read more

Supreme Court Denies Review in Several Gun Cases

by

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to deny review in several significant gun-related cases has sparked discussions among legal experts and advocates alike. This decision reflects the court’s ongoing approach to Second Amendment issues, particularly concerning the rights of individuals with felony convictions. The implications of these rulings could have far-reaching effects on gun laws across the United States. Overview of the Denied Cases On a Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court declined to review four petitions challenging the ban on firearm possession for individuals previously convicted of felonies. The cases in question included Zherka v. Bondi, … Read more

Court Holds There is a Time Limit on Challenging Void Judgments

by

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton underscores the significance of adhering to procedural timelines when contesting legal judgments. This case highlights a critical interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), which establishes that litigants must act within a reasonable timeframe to challenge judgments deemed void. The implications of this ruling extend beyond the specifics of the case itself, reinforcing the importance of timely legal action in the judicial process. Background of the Case The dispute originated from bankruptcy proceedings involving Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC, which began over … Read more