This case addressed whether a state could unilaterally withdraw from an interstate compact when the compact does not expressly address withdrawal. The Supreme Court held that New Jersey could unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact, applying principles of contract law and state sovereignty. Introduction: "New York v. New Jersey"

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the statutory review schemes in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not preclude district court jurisdiction over claims challenging the constitutionality of the SEC or FTC's structure or existence. The Court applied the Thunder Basin factors, determining that the

The Supreme Court in "Wilkins et al. v. United States" ruled that Section 2409a(g) of the Quiet Title Act, which sets a 12-year time bar for claims against the United States regarding real property, is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar. This distinction impacts how legal claims

The Supreme Court clarified that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)'s exhaustion requirement does not preclude a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for compensatory damages, a remedy not provided under IDEA. Introduction: This case addresses the intersection of the IDEA and ADA, focusing on the

This Supreme Court case addressed the escheatment of certain financial products sold by MoneyGram, namely Agent Checks and Teller’s Checks. The key legal principle established is that these disputed instruments are similar enough to money orders to fall within the scope of the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and

This case centered on the interpretation of the Bank Secrecy Act’s (BSA) penalty provisions for nonwillful violations in failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). The key legal doctrine established was that the maximum $10,000 penalty for nonwillful violations accrues on a per-report,

The Supreme Court ruled in "Bartenwerfer v. Buckley" that under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debt obtained by fraud is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, irrespective of the debtor's personal involvement in the fraud. This decision affirms the principle that liability for fraud can be attributed to

The core legal principle established in Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc. v. Hewitt revolves around the criteria for the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) overtime pay exemption, particularly focusing on the "salary basis" requirement. The Supreme Court held that daily-rate workers, regardless of their income level, are only considered to

The core legal principle established in Cruz v. Arizona concerns the adequate application of state procedural rules in federal constitutional claim cases. It revolves around the interpretation of a state procedural rule's adequacy in light of a federal decision, highlighting the importance of a state’s procedural decisions in determining

This case addresses whether the one-year time limit in Section 5110(b)(1) of U.S. Code, relating to the effective date of disability compensation to veterans, is subject to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court held that this provision is not subject to equitable tolling, maintaining the precise statutory framework