The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to businesses seeking to block their information from being disclosed to the public after it winds up in the hands of the federal government.in favor of retailers seeking to prevent a South Dakota newspaper from obtaining store-level data on the redemption of food stamp benefits, now officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
That court ruled in favor of the newspaper, at which point the Food Marketing Institute, a trade group that represents retailers such as grocery stores, filed an appeal in lieu of the USDA. "We’re disappointed in today’s outcome, obviously," said Cory Myers, the news director of the Argus Leader, in aposted to the newspaper's website. "This is a massive blow to the public’s right to know how its tax dollars are being spent, and who is benefiting. Regardless, we will continue to fight for government openness and transparency, as always."By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Three justices — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — partially dissented. Joined by his two liberal colleagues, Breyer said the majority’s ruling threatened to cloak information the public deserves to know.
The argusleader Argus Leader might have won their case?, based on an argument that the digital health footprint, i.e. SNAP, receipts would benefit the areas population health?
Hell ya great decision!!!!
A cockroach does its best work in the dark.
C U Next Tuesday ‘s 🤬🤦🏻♀️
Obama the food stamp king 😂 I saw girls with Victoria secret pants using food stamps
Qs3
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare cases with billions of dollars at stakeThe Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge from health insurers who argue the federal government owes them hefty Obamacare payments There they go again! Those private health insurers that everyone knows and loves. Enough is enough. We need MedicareForAll How is it possible that while something is STILL LAW, the president can just blatantly not follow it, yet there are virtually zero repercussions I speed 5mph and get a ticket I cant afford yet this piece of orange shit breaks the law repeatedly and it's fine. If anything the Insurance companies owe the people! A person spends more than $12k per annual weather they go to the dr or not... But they make you wait a year when they make a mistake on your file so to take your cash to line their own pockets! I say they need to be eliminated!
Source: politico - 🏆 381. / 59 Read more »
Supreme Court bolsters rights for developers and property owners in California and elsewhereThe Supreme Court’s conservative majority gave a major boost to property rights, ruling that developers and landowners may go directly to federal court and seek compensation for a “taking” of their property. I can't wait to read the comments on this one.... Surprised you didn’t put the quotes around “their” VP Really, how? Try asking them, use my name if you want. I'm going to 'Somehow' prove in court that a NYS cop stole all of my $$s, papers and property...without 1st a method of my having rights to $$s, papers or properties and 'The State', not having them?(King Ramses died)
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down stiff firearms penaltiesConservative Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the U.S. Supreme Court&39;s four liberal members on Monday in striking down as unconstitutionally vague a law imposing stiff criminal sentences for people convicted of certain crimes involving firearms. In the 5-4 ruling, with Gorsuch&39;s fellow conservatives Must of been the firearms bit. is gorsuch the new kennedy? Was a crime with a firearm violent if the weapon was not discharged? The distinction makes a difference with respect for the time to be served.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
U.S. Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump steel tariffsThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to President Donald Trump&39;s tariffs on imported steel brought by an industry group that argued that a key part of the law under which he imposed the duties violates the U.S. Constitution. The justices declined to hear the American Institute Democrats can no longer get their way by using the Courts.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Bolsonaro’s Conservative Agenda Is Tested in Brazilian Supreme CourtWhen Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro took office in January, he promised to defend what he calls traditional-family values, loosen gun laws and push the nation to the right after decades of mostly leftist rule. But six months into Mr. Bolsonaro’s administration, the Supreme Court is proving to be a powerful obstacle to his conservative agenda. Going to the right is the only solution to the countries significant problems, most rational people from Brazil would agree. Socialism is not yet viable in such a country... too much violence, illegal activity and corruption at all levels of society. You need pure capitalism... build a country up before you slowly improve the social safety nets and benefits to a sustainable and responsible level. Six month of nothing!
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »
Supreme Court sides with designer over allegedly offensive trademarkNEW: Supreme Court sides with designer who sought to trademark allegedly offensive term but was blocked by a federal law prohibiting registration of 'immoral or scandalous' ideas. MORE: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with a designer over an allegedly offensive trademark. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. Another beer please And that’s free speech, it’s a wrap.
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »