<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; DC News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/category/DC-News/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 20:49:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court declines to hear music downloading case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 20:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sylvia Hsieh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal downloading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music downloading]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A $675,000 jury verdict against a student who illegally downloaded 30 songs from the Internet was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to take the matter up. </p> <p>Joel Tenenbaum, a 28-year-old Boston University physics student, used file-sharing software to download and distribute music on sites including <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/23/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-music-downloading-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyers, lawmakers ponder limits of GPS tracking ruling&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/lawyers-lawmakers-ponder-limits-of-gps-tracking-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/lawyers-lawmakers-ponder-limits-of-gps-tracking-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 18:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic monitoring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. v. Jones]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-11580" title="cars3" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//srv/www/lwusa/releases/20091210164057/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files//2009/12/cars3.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />WASHINGTON – Months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police’s use of GPS tracking devices on suspects’ cars constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, law enforcement officials, defense lawyers and lawmakers are trying to define the limits of <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/lawyers-lawmakers-ponder-limits-of-gps-tracking-ruling/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/lawyers-lawmakers-ponder-limits-of-gps-tracking-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Catholic groups sue over birth control mandate&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/catholic-groups-sue-over-birth-control-mandate/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/catholic-groups-sue-over-birth-control-mandate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 20:33:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholic groups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Health and Human Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama administrations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON – In a series of lawsuits filed across the country Monday, dozens of Roman Catholic archdiocese, schools and other organizations are seeking to block the recent Health and Human Services mandate that requires most employers to cover contraception in their health care plans.</p> <p>The rule has come under fire <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/catholic-groups-sue-over-birth-control-mandate/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/catholic-groups-sue-over-birth-control-mandate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parent’s years of residency not imputed to alien child&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board of Immigration Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-80407" title="passport-visa" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2011/09/passport-visa.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />The Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that a parent’s years of residency are not imputed to a child is a permissible construction of federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.</p> <p>The first of two consolidated cases involved a Mexican national who <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Party can’t recover cost of translating documents&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translator]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="size-full wp-image-76651 alignleft" title="examine-documents" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//2011/01/examine-documents.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />A defendant that prevailed in a personal injury case filed in federal court could not recover its costs for translat­ing documents from Japanese to English, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-3 decision.</p> <p>The ruling reverses a decision from <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIVIL PRACTICE&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/civil-practice-10/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/civil-practice-10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A defendant that prevailed in a personal injury case filed in federal court could not recover its costs for translat­ing documents from Japanese to English.</p> <p>See “<a title="Party can’t recover cost of translating documents" href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/party-cant-recover-cost-of-translating-documents/"><strong>Party can’t recover cost of translating documents</strong></a>”</p> <p><em>U.S. Supreme Court. <a title="Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/civil-practice-10/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></em></a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/civil-practice-10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Posthumously conceived kids not entitled to benefits&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 16:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in vitro fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-82210" title="car-seat" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/01/car-seat.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />The Social Security Administration reasonably interpreted federal law in determining that only children supported by a deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime are entitled to Social Security benefits, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>Children conceived by in vitro <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/social-security-benefits/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/social-security-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 15:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Children conceived by in vitro fertilization after a wage earner’s death are not entitled to Social Security benefits –  only children supported during the parent’s lifetime may collect benefits.</p> <p>See “<a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/posthumously-conceived-kids-not-entitled-to-benefits/" target="_blank"><strong>Posthumously conceived kids not entitled to benefits</strong></a>”</p> <p><em>U.S. Supreme Court. <a href="../../../../../wp-files/pdfs-4/astruevcapato11-159.pdf">Astrue v. Capato</a>, No. 11-159. May 21, <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/social-security-benefits/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></em></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/social-security-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IMMIGRATION&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/immigration-37/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/immigration-37/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 15:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that a parent’s years of residency are not imputed to a child is a permissible construction of federal law.</p> <p>See “<a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/parents-years-of-residency-not-imputed-to-alien-child/" target="_blank"><strong>Parent’s years of residency not imputed to alien child</strong></a>.”</p> <p><em>U.S. Supreme Court. <a href="../../../../../wp-files/pdfs-4/holdervgutierrez10-1542.pdf">Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers</a>, Nos. 10-1542 <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/immigration-37/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></em></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/immigration-37/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>STANDING&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/standing-2/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/standing-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 14:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Grants of Certiorari]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Do non-citizens have Article III standing to prospectively challenge a law allowing the government to obtain foreign intelligence information about them?</p> <p><em><a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/09-4112/09-4112_opn-2011-03-27.html">Clapper v. Amnesty International USA</a>, No. 11-1025.Certiorari granted:  May 21, 2012. Ruling below: 638 F.3d 118. (2nd Cir. 2010)</em>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/21/standing-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
