Search for: "Matter of Kavanaugh"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,597
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jun 2024, 3:55 pm
Why does this matter? [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 4:00 am
Randolph--has some potential bearing on the analysis as a normative matter, though not as a legal matter. [read post]
29 May 2024, 9:01 pm
”But “tradition” is a more complicated matter. [read post]
27 May 2024, 9:12 pm
No, such notes might not be formal, in the narrow sense of the word, but that shouldn’t matter. [read post]
24 May 2024, 6:51 pm
[This piece is cross-posted and was originally published in the Yale J. on Reg.: Notice & Comment blog] Administrative law is almost certain to undergo monumental change during the Supreme Court’s current Term. [read post]
21 May 2024, 8:36 pm
But the matter continues in the lower courts. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:06 am
Administrative law is almost certain to undergo monumental change during the Supreme Court’s current Term. [read post]
17 May 2024, 5:45 am
A second concurrence--by Justice Kagan joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett--is a bit more puzzling. [read post]
16 May 2024, 8:12 pm
(Not that it matters, by that time, the outcome of the election was already settled.) [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:41 am
By Guest Blogger Tyler Ochoa Last week, the U.S. [read post]
10 May 2024, 12:57 pm
Nealy, ruling that, so long as a claim is timely filed, a copyright plaintiff is “entitled to damages, no matter when the infringement occurred. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
What about state court proceedings, or acquittals involving juvenile courts or tribal matters? [read post]
7 May 2024, 4:30 am
It did not matter. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:00 pm
But we believe that Justice Thomas’s concerns are overstated and not supported by the record in the Abbott litigation.As a matter of law, Parklane gives a dist [read post]
6 May 2024, 5:10 pm
"[A]s a general matter, 'the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.'" Content-based restrictions on speech are ordinarily subject to strict scrutiny. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 5:51 am
Trump’s counsel and Justice Kavanaugh may think otherwise, but no judicial decision approves or recognizes this rule. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 3:26 pm
While the Court refused to do so, Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett said they were reserving judgment on the issue while the USSC studied the matter. [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:40 pm
Justice Kavanaugh appeared to be the Justice who was most interested in this "clear statement" question of statutory interpretation.It's important to understand the nature of Trump's newly-interjected "clear statement" argument. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 11:05 am
However, SCOTUS will strike the rule down on one of two grounds: Either: MQD grounds because it is retroactive, because the rule affects the contracts of 30 million, because contracts are perceived to be largely a matter of state law, and because employment is not the FTC’s ‘wheelhouse. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 3:59 pm
I can't say what the details of that distinction will be but they don't really matter. [read post]
