Sentences with phrase «not challenge the statute»

The State claimed that RIAR could not challenge the statute because it was not being prosecuted under it.

Not exact matches

The 1st Circuit concluded, «As to the merits of the Commerce Clause challenge, the AMT is a facially discriminatory statute that does not meet the heightened level of scrutiny required to survive under the dormant Commerce Clause.»

Legal challenges are possible A Democratic official in the state Legislature agreed, saying that the 2008 statute indicates that the state's status in the program is permissive, not mandatory.

Courts tend to defer to federal agencies on interpreting statutes like Dickey - Wicker, and the fact that the HHS interpretation has been consistent and wasn't challenged in court until now may weaken the plaintiffs» case.

«Plaintiffs still could have demonstrated a facial equal protection violation, however, by showing that the challenged statutes, regardless of how they are implemented, inevitably cause poor and minority students to be provided with an education that is not «basically equivalent to» their more affluent and / or white peers.»

It was the culmination of decades of oppression; countless incidents of people who recognized and courageously stood up to the fact that «separate but equal» statutes were not working; and many years of unsuccessful court challenges.

«The challenged statutes do not inevitably lead to the assignment of more inexperienced teachers to schools serving poor and minority children,» said Boren, who received his judicial appointments from Republican Govs. George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson.

«The challenged statutes do not inevitably lead to the assignment of more inexperienced teachers to schools serving poor and minority children,» Presiding Justice Roger Boren said in the 3 - 0 ruling.

Plaintiffs failed to establish that the challenged statutes violate equal protection, primarily because they did not show that the statutes inevitably cause a certain group of students to receive an education inferior to the education received by other students.

Another challenge we have found was that the PCSB's enabling statute states that it can not mandate all EC schools to adopt the same assessment.

The lawyers for the state and teacher unions mounted strong counter arguments, that the challenged statutes are not the problem.

Likewise in Minnesota, the district judge said that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they had been harmed in any way by the statutes, but even if they had, «because Plaintiffs» alleged harms are not fairly traceable to the teacher tenure and the continuing contract provisions they challenge, a decision by the Court to strike those laws would not redress the harms.»

«You can't make sense out of non-sense,» he intoned more than once, insisting that the challenged statutes are the prime reason why so many ineffective teachers remain in California classrooms.

Some motorists such as Dean Winton have successfully challenged «flashing your lights» tickets in court by arguing that this statute is clearly «aimed at stopping motorists from operating flashing lights to imply they're driving official or emergency vehicles» — not at people who flash their headlights to warn of a speed trap (or, I would imagine, to inform an oncoming driver that his high beams are on).

Class v. United States, No. 16 - 424, holding that a guilty plea, alone, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction.

I understand there has been some discussion about a broader constitutional challenge to the underlying statutes that permit police forces to retain such records but don't hold your breath.

The very next day, the United States Supreme Court confirmed the overbreadth doctrine as it applies to statutes, but said that Due Process vagueness challenges do not apply...

Another income tax statute in 1894 was overturned in Pollock v. Farmers» Loan & Trust Co. in 1895, where the Supreme Court held that income taxes on income from property, such as rent income, interest income, and dividend income (however excepting income taxes on income from «occupations and labor» if only for the reason of not having been challenged in the case, «We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property») were to be treated as direct taxes.

Of course, a statute that deprives pro se litigants of rights is not likely to get the challenge it deserves.

Statutes tend not to use idiomatic expressions, so some of the challenges raised by Mr David here don't arise.

In a 5 - 4 ruling, the Court held that the statute unambiguously requires the PTAB to rule on all challenged claims, not just the claims as to which the PTAB institutes trial, and that the USPTO lacks discretion to implement rules and procedures to the contrary.

The more interesting question is whether, if any challenge is successful, the entire statute would be thrown out, since the America Invents Act does not include a severability clause.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the lower court's opinion, holding that the organization lacked standing because its claim was not redressable, as the organization only challenged the canon, and not a state statute that also allowed a party to disqualify an impartial judge based on the same standard as the canon.

The statute was clearly retroactive — it was not a tort, prior its enactment, to cause the government economic damage by selling tobacco, and this retroactivity was one of the grounds on which it was challenged, the argument being that it violated the principle of the Rule of Law.

The court's decision to take on the legally dubious King v. Burwell case, she writes, positions the court on «the front lines of a partisan war,» and puts «not only the Affordable Care Act, but the court itself» in peril.Greenhouse contrasts this case with the previous challenge the court took up to Obamacare, pointing out that this time what's in question isn't the constitutionality of the law, but its statutory interpretation — what did Congress intend and did the government interpret and implement the statute correctly.

Jones v. Flowers, 373 Ark. 213 (Ark. 2008)(established, on remand from a U.S. Supreme Court victory in a constitutional challenge to state tax foreclosure procedures, that attorney's fees may be recovered under federal civil rights law even when the plaintiff's original complaint did not cite the federal statute)(briefed, co-counsel)

The lawsuit challenges the collection costs charged to the GSEs, stating there is not a provision in the Nevada Revised Statutes to permit HOAs to authorize third party debt collectors to assess and charge the government owners, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The court found that the RIAR could challenge the constitutionality of the statute because the current Attorney General had not stated his intentions about prosecuting anyone under the statute and the court believed that RIAR's proposed use of the public information to solicit members and to market its services would likely violate the statute.