Search for: "Matter of Kagan"
Results 1 - 20
of 2,763
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2024, 10:52 am
We have previously and wisely declined "to express [a] view as to [§666's] soundness as a policy matter. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 9:34 am
But the majority didn't discuss the matter. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 3:07 pm
The Court reversed unanimously, with seven justices, all but the Chief Justice and Justice Alito, signing on to the principal parts of Justice Kagan’s opinion for the majority. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 1:29 pm
In years past, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh were joined at the hip, but now ACB seems to be breaking away towards Justice Kagan, who can continuously reinvent herself with the principle of the day to find a new vote. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 10:57 am
No matter what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and courts did, it would benefit their campaigns. [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm
Solicitor General to review the matter. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 7:16 am
Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 7:16 am
Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 7:16 am
Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 3:12 pm
Smith did not raise that issue in his petition for review, Kagan wrote. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 1:38 pm
” That sums up the entire matter. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 11:45 am
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concurs in Rahimi to say that she joined the opinion because it correctly applies Bruen, but she continues to think Bruen is wrong. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 10:26 am
” Coney-Barrett surveyed the history of immigration law, stating Congress has “never made spousal immigration a matter of right. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 8:12 am
Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 7:39 am
We do not know how Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett voted. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 11:23 pm
that it is “better to answer a question that does matter than one that almost certainly does not”.This ruling was accompanied by the observation that the Second Circuit’s view in Sohm v. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm
As a practical matter, this decision will likely jumpstart long-delayed regulatory and enforcement work at the CFPB, including the vacated payday lending rules that were the subject of this litigation. [read post]
15 Jun 2024, 8:05 pm
But Justice Barrett had limited experience on the bench, wrote little as an academic, and never took any position on controversial matters of concern. [read post]
15 Jun 2024, 7:05 pm
And does it matter? [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 11:11 am
But, no matter the approach taken, we all agree that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment. [read post]