Search for: "Jonathan H. Adler" Results 2261 - 2280 of 3,091
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Sep 2020, 10:52 am by Jonathan H. Adler
[Two constitutional rights plus one outside catalyst do not equal one constitutional wrong.] [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 7:23 pm
On Wednesday, March 4, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in the third Obamacare case to reach One First Street, King v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 7:22 am
Some LGBT activists are upset with University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, one of the nation’s foremost law-and-religion scholars. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 5:03 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Sunday evening, CBS News’ “60 Minutes” featured Lesley Stahl’s interview with President-elect Donald Trump. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 7:50 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Over the weekend, Gregory Diskant suggested in a Post op-ed that President Obama could unilaterally appoint Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate fails to act on his nomination. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 8:05 am by Jonathan H. Adler
This morning, in what may be the most significant abortion-related decision of the past twenty-five years, a divided Supreme Court struck down a Texas law regulating abortion providers. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 8:05 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Today the Supreme Court handed down two 5-4 decisions along traditional ideological lines, NIFLA v. [read post]
28 May 2021, 6:32 am by Jonathan H. Adler
[A divided panel grants a preliminary injunction against privileging relief applications based on the race or sex of the applicant.] [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 11:46 am by Jonathan H. Adler
[Dean Chemerinsky has argued for and against the filibuster on both constitutional and policy grounds.] [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 3:02 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
[The justices wrestled with the problem of identifying a clear, coherent, and administrable definition to constrain federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.] [read post]
6 Jan 2023, 6:06 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
[A majority of judges concluded the plain language of the statute does not apply to bump stocks, but they also would have denied Chevron deference had they found the statute ambiguous.] [read post]