The federal District court for the District of Columbia (Trevor N. McFadden) has denied a motion for preliminary injunction brought by a group of advocacy organizations serving immigrant communities seeking to stop enforcement of new statutory registration requirements. The Court denied the motion because the plaintiff groups failed to show that they have a substantial likelihood of standing. (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. U.S.
The Tax Court has ruled that an appraisal of early Chinese art is not a “qualified appraisal” by a “qualified appraisal” for purposes of claiming a charitable contribution deduction, but that it will not penalize the donor because the donor had “reasonable cause” to believe that he had complied with the law. The donor had previously settled a deduction claim with the Internal Revenue System when the claim was based on an appraisal by the same appraiser.
After James Jimirro, a resident of California, negotiated with the Paley Center for Media in New York to fund an annual program on the role of media in influencing thought and behavior, they signed a charitable gift agreement in 2016 under which Jimirro provided $1 million to fund the “James P. Jimirro Media Impact Series.”
The federal District Court of Rhode Island (John J. McConnell, Jr.) has ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to stop holding up funds under its existing obligations to states and nonprofit organizations in violation of an earlier preliminary injunction.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, has granted a stay of a temporary restraining order that would have forced the Department of Education to fund previously awarded contracts under the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program.
When an attorney in New Mexico was found guilty of contempt of court by refusing to proceed to trial in defiance of orders and warnings, he was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to ten days in jail (with ten days suspended) and ordered to pay a $1000 fine to the New Mexico State Bar Foundation.
On appeal, the state Supreme Court has held that the order to pay a fine to a third party is permitted under the judiciary’s “inherent and uniquely broad” contempt power and the state Constitution.
Whether a local land use regulation imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion is a question of law for the court and not a question of fact for a jury, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held. It has joined the reasoning of the First and Sixth Circuits in determining that the decision-maker under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) is the court and not the jury.
