Search for: "Martinez v. Attorney General, United States" Results 1 - 20 of 201
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2024, 6:55 pm by Stephen Halbrook
Because of this coercive practice, Jeff Sessions, the first Attorney General appointed by President Trump, issued a Prohibition on Improper Guidance Documents (2017). [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 7:13 am by jeffreynewmanadmin
   B-1 visas generally do not permit visa holders to perform paid labor while in the United States. [read post]
17 Mar 2023, 8:50 am by Reference Staff
Martinez was part of the legal team that represented the petitioner in the landmark case Griggs v. [read post]
Assistant Solicitor General Anthony Yang was present arguing on behalf of the United States in support of Perez. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 9:05 pm by Victoria Hawekotte
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tweeted that despite the court’s ruling, he had appealed the case and investigations of families could proceed. [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Spending in election cycles by corporations and the ultrawealthy through so-called dark money groups has skyrocketed since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 6:04 am by David Klein
” Whether a website constitutes a “place of public accommodation” under the ADA has generated a great deal of controversy in courts across the United States in recent years. [read post]
6 Aug 2022, 7:25 am by Ilya Somin
United States (1944), which had allowed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. [read post]
5 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite said the department has investigated more than 1,000 harassing and threatening messages directed at election workers. [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 12:23 pm by DONALD SCARINCI
[i]s a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 12:51 pm by Rohini Kurup
Specifically, “if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States,” the court is prohibited from disclosing any information that is not directly necessary to determining whether the surveillance was legal. [read post]