McGirt Uncertainty Extends to Federal Environmental Regulations in Indian Country
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
In 2019, Congress enacted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), which created jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for...more
Takeaway: Class action plaintiffs often endeavor to structure their complaints to avoid federal jurisdiction. To avoid federal diversity jurisdiction, for example, class plaintiffs often will name non-diverse defendants with...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued one decision today: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, No. 23-583: This case addresses the availability of federal court jurisdiction to review the Secretary of Homeland Security’s...more
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING DEALS BLOW TO TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY - In stunning disregard of over 200 years of precedent (dating back to the 1823 landmark case Worcester v. Georgia), on June 29, 2022, via Oklahoma v....more
On October 4, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in an appeal from a decision of the Second Circuit which held that New York’s opioid stewardship payment, required as part of the New York Opioid...more
On March 18, in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, No. 346, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court held that Delaware corporations may validly adopt forum selection provisions requiring that all claims arising under the federal Securities...more
In most countries, it is uncontroversial that a court sitting at the situs of an arbitration has jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition to confirm or vacate or modify an award issued in that arbitration. In the United States...more
On June 15, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Mata v. Lynch, No. 14-185, holding that federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) rejection of an alien’s motion...more
The US Supreme Court recently held that under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant need not provide proof of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal to federal court. Only a plausible allegation is...more
Just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the...more
Days before the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the requirements for CAFA notices of removal in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Third Circuit addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving a...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that a notice of removal from state court to federal court requires only pleading good faith allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds a jurisdictional threshold. The...more
In a previous blog, we explained that the Supreme Court was considering whether a defendant merely has to allege jurisdictional facts or provide evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case....more
The US Supreme Court ruled last Monday that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their attempts to remove a case from state to federal court. Rather, they need only include in their...more
On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens that a class action defendant need only allege the requisite amount of controversy “plausibly” in the notice of...more
The Supreme Court has held that a notice of removal requires only a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and confirmed that a notice of removal need not include evidence...more
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, a case involving the procedural requirements for removing a class action from state to federal court under the Class...more
A landfill developer has asked the Supreme Court to review a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that a jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not final agency action subject to judicial review....more