Decided - FindLaw Important Court Decisions and Settlements Blog

Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog


If you haven't heard about the Supreme Court's ruling regarding same-sex marriage in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, you've probably been living under a rock or have never used Facebook before.

FYI: The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. While you may have heard all about the decision by now, here is a more in-depth look into the case, the ruling, and the dissents.

Time after time, Obamacare has withstood challenges before the Supreme Court.

This time, opponents of the law tried to use four words in the 2,700 page bill to bring the law down. Yesterday, they failed.

The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a controversial abortion restriction after a lower court struck down the law.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that North Carolina's mandate that doctors take ultrasounds and describe the image to women prior to abortions was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided not to review that ruling, and did not comment on their decision.

Remember when your parents told you that you couldn't do something? You would ask "Why not?" and your parent answers, "Because I said so." After the Supreme Court's decisions in Din v. Kerry, the government can now essentially use such an answer in its immigrant visa denials.

In a 5-4 decision, the divided Supreme Court ruled that due process does not entitle visa applicants to more detailed justifications for why their applications were denied.

In a clash between the Executive and Legislative Branches, the judicial branch sided with the President. In a 6-3 decision announced on Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute that allowed Americans born in Jerusalem to have Israel listed as their country of birth on passports.

Instead, the Court said that the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereigns. The ruling appears to solidify the Executive Branch's power over diplomacy and foreign policy, but where did it come from, and what will it mean?

Homeowners can no longer void their second mortgage in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

In a win for banks, the Supreme Court ruled in Bank of America, N.A. v, Caulkett, by a unanimous decision, that struggling homeowners cannot cancel their second mortgage in bankruptcy even when the value of their home is less than their first mortgage.

Here is what you need to know:

Free practice of religion and free speech. Our First Amendment protections are a little bit stronger after two of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and Elonis v. United States.

Here is what you need to know about these decisions:

It has been nearly a year since a traumatic six-car accident critically injured comedians Tracy Morgan, Harris Stanton, and Ardie Fuqua, and killed 62-year-old James McNair.

Earlier this year, Walmart reached a settlement with McNair's family for $10 million. This month, Morgan has also settled his case with Walmart

Remember those lawyers up in arms over Target's proposed $19M settlement with MasterCard over the retailer's massive 2013 data breach? Well it looks like a good day for them.

The companies had a 90% participation threshold in order to certify the settlement and a May 20 deadline to meet it. The deadline passed without the required participation, so now the settlement is on hold and could be voided.

So what does this mean for the consumers and the banks involved?

Lately, we've heard a lot of discourse and protest about excessive use of police violence against minorities. However, there is an equally vulnerable minority group, the mentally ill and disabled, who are also frequent victims of police force.

In the case of City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, the Supreme Court considered whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires police to provide accommodations to armed and violent mentally ill suspects. The Court also looked at whether the Fourth Amendment clearly establishes that officers cannot forcibly enter the home of an armed, mentally ill subject when there was no immediate need.

In its ruling, the Court sidestepped both issues.