The Supreme Court featured a new term in October 2017, which involved a “Legal Shutdown.” The situation was about a federal agency experiencing a face-off by the Justice Department.
It was strange to hear that the United States Justice Department could dispute with another federal agency.
It was even queerer for the Justice Department to send its top defense attorney on the Supreme Court case.
There were majorly three cases where Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the Justice Department had been in opposition towards another agency.
Two of these cases were scheduled for 2018 at the Supreme Court, while the third case was scheduled for that same month, October 2017.
An appellate lawyer, Deepak Gupta said it was weird having two federal government lawyers opposing each other in court.
Additionally, because it happened in different instances and issues under the Trump administration made it extraordinary, which signaled caution.
car accident attorney near me: Florida Advocates is an experienced law practice serving Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Dania Beach, and other areas.
The first case concerned workers’ right to unanimous action. The remaining two cases dwelled on whether the agency that protects consumers’ rights disrupts the constitution.
It also checked if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers employee dismissal due to sexual orientation.
Opposing other federal agencies was a peculiar case embarked upon by the Justice Department.
Republican Noel Francisco, the United States solicitor general was sworn in by the Senate that same month and was to oppose the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board), which he formerly represented.
Under the Obama administration, the solicitor general stood before the Supreme Court for the agency responsible for protecting employees from unjust labor practices (the NLRB).
However, in June 2017, Noel Francisco’s office changed sides after the Obama tenure was over to oppose the NLRB.
Labor advocates decided to check the Reagan administration to find a replica of the situation were due to political reasons, a new administration took a different turn on a case before the Supreme Court.
The stakes are high in the NLRB suit. The case is whether there is a condition that prevents employees from uniting to fight for a better working standard or demand higher remuneration and resolve grievances.
It was preferred to luring them individually into secret arbitration proceedings.
The NLRB has since 2012 reiterated that forceful arbitration was illegal since they oppose employees from forming collective unions as stated in the NLRB act of 1935.
Citizens are liable to be coerced to give up any unanimous petition rights to become employed by the government, and it was presided over by the Justice Department.
In a situation where the employer or department of the employee happens to prevail, the employment contract becomes extended.
Moreover, it saves employers from facing unnecessary agitation from staff unions or lawsuits.
After the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) was established to protect citizens from overbearing mortgages, student loans, and credit cards.
Senator Elizabeth Warren formed the agency, which became the target of the Republicans, and the Trump regime has decided to collapse it.
However, the Justice Department has switched sides over the case of the CFPB as it did previously to other federal agencies.
There was a sexual orientation discrimination case that involved Donald Zarda. Zarda was a skydiving instructor fired by his employer for being gay.
The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) took sides with Donald Zarda because the Civil Rights Act bans workplace sexual discrimination.
Consequently, the Justice Department took up the case, which was another strange step because it was a private lawsuit.
The government had no reason to be involved in any personal proceeding, but it only made the Trump administration more disoriented.