Search for: "United States v. State of Montana"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,058
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2012, 7:57 am
In fact, corporations are free to make campaign contributions so long as they solicit them from employees and shareholders, then pass them on to candidates via separate, transparent accounts, and file two simple forms with the state.When Montana’s state’s supreme court upheld the law, ATP asked the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the decision, effectively granting an injunction. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 5:01 am
As the Brennan Center has noted, state critical infrastructure laws borrow from the federal concept of critical infrastructure: segments of the economy “so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect” on national security and public safety, thereby deserving enhanced legislative protection. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 8:45 am
The Court--or rather the same five Justices appointed by Republicans who brought us Citizens United--held that Citizens United squarely forbids states from banning corporate spending on elections--whatever the facts in that state. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
United States Bureau of Land Management, Case No. 08-178-M-DWM, in the U.S. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 9:44 am
“The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 6:37 am
United States. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 8:42 am
” Late Friday, the Montana Supreme Court defied the Citizens United decision, holding that its state law banning corporate spending in elections is valid, setting up what could be a new challenge to the 2010 case, as we detailed here, and our own Jess Bravin reported here. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:52 pm
Among other arguments, they urged the Court not to consider developments in campaign finance since the Court’s 2010 ruling that is centrally at issue: Citizens United v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 1:57 pm
United States (Tribal Courts; Double Jeopardy) Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. [read post]
25 May 2021, 2:55 am
GILTI is meant to ensure that, regardless of where a U.S. company does business in the world, its foreign subsidiaries pay at least a minimum rate of income tax, if not to other countries, then to the United States. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:27 pm
Section 2's references to these rights talk about their status as "a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. [read post]
In sequel to McGirt, justices will again review scope of state prosecutorial power in Indian country
26 Apr 2022, 10:06 am
Those cases, led by United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2006, 3:56 am
By granting review in yet another state sentencing case, California v. [read post]
22 Dec 2021, 1:54 pm
United States (Trust Relationship; Tucker Act) Alegre v. [read post]
19 Jan 2020, 9:00 am
United States and GE Energy Power Conversion France v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 6:39 am
United States, the legal challenge to Arizona immigration bill S.B. 1070. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 7:35 am
Army Corps and Rapanos v. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 8:01 am
See United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
As they noted: Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 12:26 pm
United States Department of Interior (Land into Trust; Alaska Tribes)United States v. [read post]
