(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House of Representatives opposed a request by Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump's acting chief of staff, to join a lawsuit seeking a judge's guidance whether he must comply with a subpoena to testify at impeachment hearings. The case is Kupperman v. House of Representatives of the U.S.A., 19-cv-03224, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington). [Extracted from the article]
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House of Representatives opposes President Donald Trump's acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's request to join a lawsuit seeking a judge's guidance whether he must comply with a subpoena to testify at impeachment hearings. In a filing Monday in Washington federal court, House lawyers told a judge to reject Mulvaney's request. [Extracted from the article]
LOCAL taxation, TAXATION, SALES tax, PROPERTY tax, INCOME tax, ACTIONS & defenses (Law), LAW, and U.S. states
The article offers information on state and local taxes (SALT) deduction in the U.S. Topics discussed include role of repealing of SALT deductions in federal revenue; practical implications and limitations of the SALT deduction; beneficiary of SALT deductions such as California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois; and arguments for retaining the SALT deduction along with information on repealing the SALT deduction for sales taxes while retaining it for income and property taxes.
Cornell Law Review. Mar2014, Vol. 99 Issue 3, p571-632. 62p.
ACTIONS & defenses (Law), LEGAL self-representation, STATE statutes (United States), FEDERAL laws, OPERATION Fast & Furious, 2009-2011, BICAMERALISM, and CONSTITUTIONAL law -- United States -- Cases
Scholars and jurists have long assumed that, when the executive branch declines to defend a federal statute, Congress may intervene in federal court to defend the law. When invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, no Supreme Court Justice challenged the authority of the House of Representatives to defend federal laws in at least some circumstances. At the same time, in recent litigation over the Fast and Furious gun-running case, the Department of Justice asserted that the House could not go to court to enforce a subpoena against the executive. In this Article, we seek to challenge both claims. We argue that Congress has the constitutional power to enforce subpoenas but not defend federal statutes in court. Congressional defense of federal statutes violates two constitutional norms. First, except in certain specified situations (none of which are applicable here), the Constitution prohibits Congress or one of its components from having any role in the implementation of federal law. Second, unilateral defense by the House or the Senate violates the constitutional norm of bicameralism. The Constitution does not authorize either chamber to speak on behalf of Congress, much less the United States, in defense of federal law. By contrast, the Constitution gives each chamber considerable power to investigate wrongdoing by the executive and to conduct litigation growing out of such investigations--by, for example, enforcing subpoenas. We believe that this limited congressional power to appear in court makes eminent sense. The House and Senate counsel, as currently constituted, are poorly suited to defend their joint work product in court but are well situated to represent their respective institutions in other proceedings against the executive. Furthermore, this investigative power gives each chamber a powerful (and often overlooked) constitutional tool to do battle with the executive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
BUSINESS tax, ACTIONS & defenses (Law), and COURTS -- United States
The article reports that the U.S. House Democrats have asked a U.S. court to force the U.S. Treasury Department to turn over six years of U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal and business tax returns. It mentions that long-expected lawsuit filed in a Washington federal court is U.S. Congress's latest attempt to assert oversight over the executive branch. It also discusses that neither of the Treasury Department or the Internal Revenue Service replied to requests for comment on the lawsuit.
ACTIONS & defenses (Law), JUDGMENTS (Law), CHEVRON USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. (Supreme Court case), and AIR quality laws
The article discusses the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to the court case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. It mentions that the U.S. Supreme Court plans to roll back the Chevron doctrine. It suggests that the Court should ground any changes of Chevron on the constitutional norm that the lawmakers elected by the governed. Among other things, it outlines some factors to consider on how to navigate controversies to restore congressional responsibility to the firmament.
Benefits Law Journal. Spring2020, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p80-86. 7p.
EMPLOYEE fringe benefits, PENSIONS, ACTIONS & defenses (Law), and EMPLOYEE Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (U.S.)
"Lawyers must eat, so they generally won't take cases without a reasonable prospect of getting paid."1 Acknowledging that fact, Congress has authorized courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to parties who have obtained "some degree of success on the merits" when asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA).2 As stated by Congress in the very first section of ERISA, one of Congress' intentions in passing the Act was to provide to employee benefit plan participants "ready access to the federal courts."3 Congress, no doubt, thought that participants in ERISA plans, who have been deprived of pensions or other employee benefits, would be unable to afford to pay a lawyer on an hourly basis. ERISA Section 502(g) provides that "the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney fee and costs of action to either party."4 In practice, "as a general rule, ERISA plaintiffs should be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees if they succeed on any significant issue and litigation which achieves some of the benefits the party sought in bringing suit."5 In fact, a prevailing ERISA plan participant "should ordinarily recover an attorney fee unless special circumstances would render an award unjust."6 Under ERISA, attorney fees are determined by a lodestar analysis, multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the matter by a reasonable hourly rate.7 Our courts emphasize that parties entitled to fees under ERISA "should recover a fully compensatory fee" encompassing "all hours reasonably expended on litigation."8. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Southern California Law Review. 2017, Vol. 90 Issue 6, p1329-1358. 30p.
FAIR use (Copyright), ACTIONS & defenses (Law), SONY Corp. v. Universal City Studios Inc. (Supreme Court case), and HARPER & Row Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (Supreme Court case)
The article explores the transformation of fair use, a judicial doctrine codified in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. It identifies the pre-existing statutory factors that led to the transformation of fair use following the decision by Congress to the Copyright Act to include the doctrine. The use of fair use by the Supreme Court in coming up with the rulings for Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios Inc. and Harper & Row Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises is discussed.
HOUSING, ACTIONS & defenses (Law), TAXATION, SUBPOENA, and DEMOCRATS
The House Democrat charged with obtaining President Donald Trump's tax returns indicated he's going to sue, rather than issue a subpoena, in the next battle to obtain the president's records. Trump on Wednesday asserted executive privilege over all of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigative documents sought by House Democrats, escalating a conflict between the White House and Congress. [Extracted from the article]