When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in July that the federal government planned to again emphasize the pursuit of civil asset forfeitures, an issue moved to the front burner for health care providers and their advisers: If the federal (or state) government decides to pursue a case against a care provider or medical practice, it can seize the alleged culprit's property, even before conviction.
In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court applied what has come to be known as the Penn Central balancing test to uphold New York City's refusal to approve an office tower atop Grand Central Terminal.
In Matal v. Tam, the trademark case involving the name of the Asian-American rock band The Slants, the SCOTUS held that the portion of §2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), that prohibits the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court as a whole appears aligned and motivated to review critically federal and state asset forfeiture procedures. In addition, Attorney General Sessions last month restored the federal forfeiture of property seized by state and local law enforcement ("federal adoptions"), but with certain additional safeguards.
In Matal v. Tam, the SCOTUS held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibiting the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Potential Ramifications of SEC Disgorgement Being a Penalty
Part One of a Two-Part Article
In reference to Kokesh, most commentators have focused on the five-year limitations period, which certainly carries important ramifications for the SEC. But as we describe here, the Supreme Court's ruling that "SEC disgorgement constitutes a penalty" has more far-reaching ramifications.
OnJune 19, the U.S. Supreme Court upended years of jurisprudence to hand corporations a gift: a far more stringent definition of specific jurisdiction that will force plaintiffs to bring suit in multiple state courts rather than join their claims to those in far-flung jurisdictions.
A look at a recent case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled to narrow the scope of criminal asset forfeiture.
Patent owners have taken control of the patent reform debate in the 115th Congress, but it's not clear yet who's supposed to be listening.
Supreme Court Turns Back Clock
Although TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies.
