Latest news with #U.S.C
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
US universities win case striking down agency's 15% research cost cap
Brown and Cornell universities, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several other US schools won a federal court order striking down a National Science Foundation cap on indirect cost rates for government-funded research. Judge Indira Talwani struck down the cap on Friday, finding it 'arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law,' granting summary judgment to the suing schools plus the Association of American Universities, and denying that relief to the government. The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts judge also denied the schools' bid for injunctive relief, stating it was now moot. The ruling is the third successful university challenge this year to federal agencies slashing research funding, following court victories against the National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy. A fourth case against the Department of Defense is pending. 'Although the 15 per cent Indirect Cost Rate does not affect existing or continuing grant awards, Plaintiffs and member institutions collectively have thousands of proposals pending before NSF, which they submitted in reliance on their negotiated indirect cost rates,' Talwani said. Those proposals are worth 'tens of millions of dollars' according to the order. The cap will prompt institutions to lay off specialized researchers, cause staff to leave for other institutions, and immediately inhibit planning, hiring, and operations, she said, adding that schools will be forced to cut 'graduate student and trainee positions, damaging critical talent pipelines.' Talwani's ruling follows the government's May 16 decision to stay the implementation of a research costs cap policy, and the court's subsequent decision to cancel a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion. The schools and AAU, in their lawsuit filed May 5 called the NSF policy, which had imposed a categorical 15 per cent cap on all new grant and cooperative agreements to universities 'clearly unlawful.' A Tailored Approach Congress authorized the use of predetermined fixed-percentage rates for payment of reimbursable indirect costs attributable to research agreements with education institutions, at 41 U.S.C. § 4708, the complaint said. 'And with Congress having preserved a tailored approach to indirect cost rates since 1965, it beggars belief to suggest that Congress—without saying a word—impliedly authorized NSF to enact a sweeping, one-size-fits-all command that will upend research at America's universities,' the plaintiffs said. The rate cap also violates regulations promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that funding recipients can recover the actual costs of conducting research the government selected them to undertake, the complaint said. The plaintiffs on May 8 moved for their injunction, asserting the policy would cause irreparable damage to universities' educational and research missions, resulting in 'critical research programs being disrupted or stopped altogether.' The government's May 27 opposition said the cap policy is allowed under National Science Foundation Act, which authorizes the NSF to use its discretion to spend federal money the way it sees fit to support its mission to promote scientific research. The US also said the court doesn't have jurisdiction to decide the case because because the plaintiffs lack standing. No plaintiff has alleged that the agency altered terms of an existing grant by applying a 15 per cent rate, the government said. Thirteen schools in all had joined in the suit including the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, the universities of of Chicago, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and Princeton University. Jenner & Block LLP and Clement & Murphy PLLC represent the plaintiffs. The case is Ass'n of Am. Universities v. Nat'l Sci. Found., D. Mass., 1:25-cv-11231, 6/20/25.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What level of immigration enforcement will Democrats actually accept?
Last week, the streets of Los Angeles burned over immigration enforcement. The incendiary exchange between California's political class and federal immigration authorities unfolded as America watched. But I have just one question for my friends on the political left: What level of immigration law enforcement is actually acceptable? This isn't a rhetorical jab. It's a genuine inquiry into where the line resides. At what point does enforcing duly enacted federal law become illegitimate in the eyes of those who advocate for sanctuary city policies and decry any interior enforcement as a moral outrage? Let's be clear about what federal law permits. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers don't just have the right to operate in all 50 states; they have a legal obligation to do so. More: ICE says nearly 200 immigrants arrested in Nashville during recent operations The Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically in section 8 U.S.C. § 1357, grants federal immigration officers the authority to interrogate and arrest non-citizens without a warrant if they have 'reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.' This isn't some obscure, rarely used statute. It's the bedrock of federal immigration enforcement. The "probable cause" standard here is consistent with what we expect from other law enforcement agencies. We can and should demand that ICE agents meet this standard, but we cannot pretend it doesn't exist. Consider the typical scenario that often gets labeled a "raid." It's not, as often portrayed, a random sweep of a neighborhood. These are enforcement actions targeted at specific employers based on evidence. In fact, worksite enforcement is a regular part of ICE operations, and it isn't limited to Democrat-dominated states. The event that started the conflagration in Los Angeles on June 6 was a basic law enforcement engagement at an apparel manufacturing business. This brings us back to the central question. If federal agents have established probable cause that a business is a hub of illegal employment, at what point in that process is it acceptable for protestors to throw rocks at officers? When is the appropriate time to set a self-driving Waymo vehicle ablaze? Is there a particular brand of sneakers that's fair game for looting when you're upset about immigration enforcement? All this boorish behavior simply demonstrates the need for even more law enforcement. The performative outrage from politicians like Gov. Gavin Newsom in his exchanges with ICE Director Tom Homan is a distraction. The issue isn't about tough talk; it's about the consistent and safe application of the law. States cannot create zones where federal law is null and void, no matter what they label them. More: Inside the volunteer group patrolling Nashville to look for ICE activity The Supreme Court has affirmed states do not have to assist in federal enforcement. They also cannot actively obstruct it. If Democrats in California and elsewhere fundamentally oppose the current immigration laws, the path to changing them runs through Washington, D.C., not through angry mobs on the streets of Los Angeles. Win a presidential election, hold majorities in Congress, and you can rewrite the nation's immigration statutes. Just don't look at the polling. As it turns out, Americans aren't into lawlessness. If Democratic leaders can't articulate a vision for how federal immigration laws can be consistently and peacefully enforced, then their position isn't that different from the masked protestor waving a foreign flag on the hood of a burning car. They might be wearing suits in positions of power, but their contempt for the rule of law is exactly the same. USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Democrats at ICE protests show contempt for federal law | Opinion
India.com
09-06-2025
- Business
- India.com
Authorities Crack Down on Boss IPTV and Affiliate Illegal IPTV Services: Users Warned of Criminal Charges and Deportation Risks
New Delhi: A major international crackdown has uncovered an extensive illegal Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) operation streaming pirated content across various digital platforms. Operating under brand names such as Boss IPTV, Guru IPTV, Tashan IPTV, Brampton IPTV, Vois IPTV, Indian IPTV, Punjabi IPTV, Edmonton IPTV, Boss Entertainment IPTV, and UltrastreamTV, this unlawful network has been implicated in severe copyright infringement and data privacy violations, According to police, these services have been illegally broadcasting premium Indian and international content including channels and programs from Star, Zee Network, Colors, Sony, Sun Network, ETV, Aha, Sonyliv, as well as global streaming platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, and international sports leagues—without securing proper licenses or permissions. Delivered through Android/Linux-based set-top boxes or via apps on smart devices, the illegal services were aggressively promoted online via social media, websites, and blogs, offering premium content at prices significantly below legal services. Government investigations reveal that these platforms do not pay content owners or platforms for rights, deeply harming the entertainment industry. The global South Asian broadcast sector loses an estimated $200–$300 million annually due to IPTV piracy, affecting licensed platforms like YuppTV,. In addition to economic damage, there are serious security concerns: pirated IPTV services often harvest user data—such as credit card information—and are linked to phishing scams, tax evasion, and potentially funding other illegal operations including drug trade and terrorism. Previously in 2021, following a complaint filed by YuppTV, the Faridabad Cyber Crime Branch conducted a raid on Boss IPTV operations in India, leading to the arrest of six individuals connected to the illegal piracy network. YuppTV has further filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court, represented by Goldstein Law Group, LLC ('GLP') targeting Boss IPTV and its affiliated entities. The complaint highlights severe violations of U.S. federal copyright law under 18 U.S.C. § 2319. According to GLP: 'Any subscriber using illegal IPTV pirate services… may be linked to copyright infringement, a crime under U.S. federal law. Convictions may result in felony charges, and non-citizens convicted of such offenses may be subject to deportation under U.S. law.' Recently, another similar case was reported by the Gandhinagar Cyber Crime Unit in Gujarat which arrested Mohammed Murtuza Ali, suspected to be the key figure behind another massive illegal IPTV operation known as Bos IPTV. Operating from Jalandhar, Punjab, Ali allegedly ran a piracy network that drew over five million subscribers and generated close to ₹700 crore (US $84 million) in annual revenue. Legal authorities suggest that to avoid the possibility of arrest and other penalties, all current users accessing pirated services immediately discontinue use and migrate to legal, licensed platforms such as YuppTV. Visit to obtain legal, authorized access to Indian content. For more information about the ongoing litigation and enforcement actions against Boss IPTV and related services, please visit: [Insert Litigation Info Link]
Business Wire
05-06-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Files Securities Class Action Against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC (OTC: RBGLY)
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ('Scott+Scott'), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC ('Reckitt' or the 'Company') (OTC: RBGLY), and certain of its former and current officers and/or directors (collectively, 'Defendants'). The Class Action asserts claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt American Depositary Shares ('ADSs') between January 13, 2021, and July 28, 2024, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), and were damaged thereby (the 'Class'). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(K) Fund v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-4708. Reckitt is a United Kingdom-based, global consumer goods company. To date, over 500 state and federal products liability lawsuits have been filed against Reckitt and its competitor, Abbott Laboratories ('Abbott'), claiming that they failed to adequately warn that premature infants consuming cow milk-based formulas, such as Reckitt's Enfamil and Abbott's Similac, have an increased risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis ('NEC'), a life-threatening intestinal disease that affects premature or low birth weight infants. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to warn investors and consumers: (1) that preterm infants were at an increased risk of developing NEC by consuming Reckitt's cow's milk-based formula, Enfamil; (2) of the attendant impact on Reckitt's sales of Enfamil and Reckitt's exposure to legal claims; and (3) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The market began to learn the truth on March 15, 2024, when, in the case captioned Watson vs. Mead Johnson Co., Case No. 21-L-1032 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 28, 2021), a jury in St. Clair County, Illinois, returned a $60 million verdict in the first NEC lawsuit to be tried to a verdict. The jury found that Mead Johnson was negligent and failed to warn the decedent's mother of the increased risk her preterm infant could develop NEC by consuming cow's milk-based formula. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.87, or nearly 14%, from a closing price of $13.31 per share on March 14, 2024, to a closing price of $11.44 per share on March 15, 2024. Then, on July 29, 2024, the market continued to learn the truth when, in the case captioned Gill v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2322-CC1251 (Mo. Circ. Ct. Jun. 23, 2023), a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, concluded that Abbott's specialized formula for premature babies led to a baby developing NEC and awarded the plaintiff $495 million. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.02, or nearly 9%, from a closing price of $11.66 per share on July 28, 2024, to a closing price of $10.64 per share on July 29, 2024. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON AUGUST 4, 2025 If you purchased Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the 'Class' and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than August 4, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312 or at nbruno@ What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices in the United States, as well as three offices in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our highly experienced attorneys have been recognized for being among the top financial lawyers in 2024 by Lawdragon, WWL: Commercial Litigation 2024, and Legal 500 in Antitrust Civil Litigation, and have received top Chambers 2024 rankings. In addition, we have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States. To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Brenda Tracy files federal lawsuit against MSU Board of Trustees
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — Brenda Tracy has filed a 51-page federal lawsuit against two Michigan State University trustees, which includes claims of breaches of information, misconduct and interference with contract. Former Michigan State University football coach Mel Tucker was fired from the university in 2023 after a sexual harassment complaint Tracy filed with MSU in 2022 went public, where Tracy claimed Tucker made nonconsensual sexual advances on her, claims Tucker has denied. In the lawsuit (below), the claims are specifically directed against MSU Trustee Dennis Denno and Rema Vassar, as well as the Board of Trustees as a whole. 09917478495Download The claims against the trustees are the following: Breach of statutory duty as to all defendants Breach of the Michigan State University Board of Trustees' code of ethics and conduct Misconduct in office as to defendants Vassar and Denno Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 And the 14th amendment substantive and procedural due process Breach of contract as to defendant BOT (Board of Trustees) Tortious interference with contract Gross negligence Tracy is also suing MSU for allegedly mishandling her complaints about sexual harassment by Tucker. Tracy's attorney declined further comment on this new lawsuit. This is a developing story and new information will be added to this article throughout the day. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
