<?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>National Senior Citizens Law Center &#187; Federal Rights Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/category/federal-rights/frp-litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nsclc.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:32:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Amicus Brief: Compucredit Corp. v. Wanda Greenwood (Supreme Court)</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/compucredit-corp-v-wanda-greenwood-amicus-brief/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=compucredit-corp-v-wanda-greenwood-amicus-brief</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/compucredit-corp-v-wanda-greenwood-amicus-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=2630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A case pending at the Supreme Court regarding the right to arbitrate could potentially address whether a statutory notice requirement conveys rights.  NSCLC joined with AARP to file a Supreme Court amicus brief addressing this important issue.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/compucredit-corp-v-wanda-greenwood-amicus-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amicus Brief: Court Applies Improper Legal Standards</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/amicus-brief-court-applies-improper-legal-standards/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=amicus-brief-court-applies-improper-legal-standards</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/amicus-brief-court-applies-improper-legal-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:55:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=1976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an amicus brief, NSCLC argues that a lower court applied the improper legal standard in treating the CMS letter as if it should be granted the same level of deference as a published regulation. Read the Amicus Brief.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/amicus-brief-court-applies-improper-legal-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AARP/NSCLC File Third Party Beneficiary Amicus Brief</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/aarp-nsclc-file-third-party-beneficiary-amicus-brief/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=aarp-nsclc-file-third-party-beneficiary-amicus-brief</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/aarp-nsclc-file-third-party-beneficiary-amicus-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:28:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=2377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AARP and NSCLC joined forces to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of third-party beneficiary contract claims in Astra v. Santa Clara. Read the Amicus Brief (Dec. 20, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/aarp-nsclc-file-third-party-beneficiary-amicus-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amicus Brief: Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Reinhard</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/amicus-brief-vopa-v-reinhard/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=amicus-brief-vopa-v-reinhard</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/amicus-brief-vopa-v-reinhard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=2858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NSCLC was lead author in an amicus brief that argued that the opinion of an appellate court threatens the supremacy of federal law.  The case appeals the Fourth Circuit’s decision in a case involving a state agency that sought to &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/amicus-brief-vopa-v-reinhard/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/amicus-brief-vopa-v-reinhard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amicus Brief: Immel v. Lumpkin</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/immel-v-lumpkin-amicus-brief/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=immel-v-lumpkin-amicus-brief</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/immel-v-lumpkin-amicus-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=2827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The district court’s holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal court review of the decision of a state administrative agency was clearly in error.  The decision below conflicts with holdings of the Supreme Court, this Court, and &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/immel-v-lumpkin-amicus-brief/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/immel-v-lumpkin-amicus-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amicus Brief: Uhm et al v. Humana Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/uhm-et-al-v-humana-inc-amicus-brief/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=uhm-et-al-v-humana-inc-amicus-brief</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/uhm-et-al-v-humana-inc-amicus-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This Court should reverse the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs-Appellants’ action on the grounds that the claims were preempted. The Court must apply the presumption against preemption, recognizing the historic presence of state law in protecting the &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/uhm-et-al-v-humana-inc-amicus-brief/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/uhm-et-al-v-humana-inc-amicus-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/maxwell-jolly-v-independent-living-center/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=maxwell-jolly-v-independent-living-center</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/maxwell-jolly-v-independent-living-center/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 19:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=2836</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BRIEF IN OPPOSITION INTRODUCTION This petition should be denied. The Ninth Circuit below, in an interlocutory order, judgment and opinion filed July 11, 2008 (to which the September 17, 2008 Opinion, reprinted by petitioner at Pet. App. 1a-36a, simply “more fully sets forth the &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/maxwell-jolly-v-independent-living-center/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/maxwell-jolly-v-independent-living-center/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amicus Brief: Independent Living Center v. Shewry</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/independent-living-center-v-shewry-amicus-brief/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=independent-living-center-v-shewry-amicus-brief</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/independent-living-center-v-shewry-amicus-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:17:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=2840</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This Court should affirm the district court’s order granting in part, Petitioners-Appellees’ (Petitioners) motion for preliminary injunction. The California Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, has the lowest Medicaid spending per enrollee in the nation and one of the lowest &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/independent-living-center-v-shewry-amicus-brief/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/independent-living-center-v-shewry-amicus-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>