Government Information

Earl Gregg Swem Library

Evolution of the Meaning of “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act

Categories: Environment,Laws/Regulations,Natural Resources,Property Rights,Supreme Court/courts

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44585.pdf

Examines how widely to interpret the phrase “Waters of the U.S.” which has no clear definition in the Clean Water Act.  The Commerce Clause is cited as the constitutional basis for regulating water quality, but recent court decisions have cited limitations to that authority.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists

 

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP et al v. Patrick L. McCrory et al.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

Court ruling that North Carolina’s legislation requiring voter photo IDs and curtailing certain election practices such as same-day registration and early voting discriminates against minority citizens.  Argues that the legislation, crafted after the Supreme Court’s Shelby decision, restricts voting and registration in five ways which “disproportionately affected African Americans.”  One of a series of recent court decisions overturning restrictive election laws.  From the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

 

State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: From the Mid-1990s to the Present

Categories: Federal State Relations,Immigration/Migration,Laws/Regulations,Supreme Court/courts

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf

Reviews the history of litigation between various states and the federal government over immigration and the exclusion or removal of unauthorized aliens.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists

 

William J. Howell et al v. Terence McAuliffe et al.

Categories: Civil/Human Rights,Crime/Justice,Elections/Campaigns,Headlines,Supreme Court/courts,Virginia Issues

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1160784.pdf

4-3 ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court that Governor McAuliffe exceeded his constitutional authority in restoring civil rights to convicted felons who had served their time.  At issue was whether the governor had the power to restore rights prior to the fall election to all those meeting the requirements en masse or had to individually review and approve each individual case. From the Supreme Court of Virginia

 

United States of America … v. Aetna, Inc. and Humana Inc.

Categories: Antitrust/Monopoly,Headlines,Health Insurance,Supreme Court/courts,Virginia Issues

https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/877881/download

Text of the law suit filed by the Justice Department and eleven states including Virginia against the proposed merger of Aetna and Humana, the third and fifth largest health insurers in the U.S.  From the Justice Department

 

United States of America … v. Anthem, Inc, and Cigna Corp

Categories: Antitrust/Monopoly,Headlines,Health Insurance,Supreme Court/courts,Virginia Issues

https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/877886/download

Text of the law suit filed by the Justice Department and eleven states including Virginia against the proposed merger of Anthem and Cigna, the 2nd and 4th largest health insurers in the U.S.  From the Justice Department

 

Justice Department and State Attorneys General Sue to Block Anthem’s Acquisition of Cigna, Aetna’s Acquisition of Humana

Categories: Antitrust/Monopoly,Headlines,Health Insurance,Supreme Court/courts,Virginia Issues

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-state-attorneys-general-sue-block-anthem-s-acquisition-cigna-aetna-s

Press release on the reasons why the U.S. Justice Department is attempting to block two proposed health insurance mergers.  Eleven states including Virginia are suing in the Federal District Court for the DC Circuit to prevent the mergers from reducing from five to three the number of national health insurers in the nation. From the Justice Department

The South China Sea Arbitration: The Republic of the Philippines v. the People’s Republic of China

Categories: China,Headlines,Laws/Regulations,Philippines,Supreme Court/courts

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf

Discusses the question of jurisdiction over historic rights and maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the positions of China and the Philippines, and the Tribunal’s decisions on the merits of the Philippines’ claims.  From the Permanent Court of Arbitration

 

Next Page »