Search for: "Barrett v. Thomas "
Results 221 - 240
of 1,030
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2023, 7:49 am
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:49 am
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:02 am
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 6:18 am
Justices Barrett and Thomas dissent. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 8:01 am
Barrett and Thomas dissented. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:32 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 10:04 pm
But Justice Barrett knows better. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 2:14 pm
Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Thomas, would have opted for what is basically a negligence standard (again, oversimplifying slightly). [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 1:33 pm
It argued that a decision from 1945, International Shoe Co. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 10:44 am
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion and joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 9:01 am
In 2019, in Rucho v. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 7:58 am
Justice Barrett, joined... [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 7:03 am
And Justice Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 12:00 am
Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Counterman v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm
Gonzalez and Twitter v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 9:06 am
They declined to do so, but Justice Clarence Thomas penned a brief dissent from the denial of review, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 6:32 am
And in Waleski v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 4:30 am
Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in the judgment for himself and Justices Thomas and Barrett. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 4:30 am
Justices Gorsuch, Barrett and Thomas concurred in the judgment. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:14 pm
I noted earlier that Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett concluded that a statute prohibited the issuance of an injunction in this case–thus the states suffered an injury that the courts could not redress. [read post]