Since I'm not in St. Louis, this shouldn't effect me, right? We're still getting click to cancel everywhere else, RIGHT?
(I know the answer)
Since I'm not in St. Louis, this shouldn't effect me, right? We're still getting click to cancel everywhere else, RIGHT?
(I know the answer)
I thought SCOTUS stopped nationwide injunctions. This sounds like a ruling.
A U.S. appeals court blocked a rule that would have required businesses to make it as easy to cancel subscriptions and memberships as it is to sign up, saying the agency that created it did not follow protocol.
Is blocking the same as ruling? Is this kind of nitpicking what we have come to as a society?
Technically we've always been there, it just hasn't mattered because both meant the thing wasn't happening in a consistent manner.
"Blocking a rule" is how they seem to be phrasing "vacating a rule". The court held that the FTC didn't follow the procedures it was given for establishing rules, and so the rule is malformed and void.
The supreme Court restricted nationwide injunctions, which are a type of court order forcing or prohibiting action, usually pending appeal to prevent further damage.
It's the court deciding a rule wasn't properly formed vs a court giving an order that reaches outside the scope of their jurisdiction.
Since a federal appeals court is an arbiter of federal law, deciding that a federal agency made a rule wrong is inside their jurisdiction.
It should be the case that a court can order you to stop breaking the law and you need to stop everywhere. The notion that the court can order you to stop dumping shit in a river and you can just move upstream across state lines and be fine is preposterous.
I should have been more clear, they can no longer implement temporary injunctions. These were used by judges to stop further action while the case was proceeding in their court.
Once the trial has been conducted and the judge makes a decision, they can decide that a nationwide law is not valid and therefore stop it's application everywhere.
Supremenem.