Search for: "Powers v. Thomas" Results 2541 - 2560 of 5,409
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
This question becomes more pressing as the clock ticks toward April 1, when the five-year term of Comptroller Thomas J. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 7:50 am by Ilya Somin
Gorsuch thought the dissent was so powerful that he sent an email to two friends who were former Thomas clerks. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Surveillance The Home Office has said that it is preparing to accept a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union from December which challenged the legality of the Investigatory Powers Act. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 4:36 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Thomas Berry discusses Tuesday’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 3:34 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 12:22 pm by Kevin Russell
Perhaps his most prominent discussion of separation of powers comes in a 2016 concurrence in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 10:20 am by ELLIOT GOLD, SERGEANTS' INN CHAMBERS
For a discussion on the decision of the Court of Appeal, see George Thomas’ case comments here on the police blog. [read post]
12 Mar 2017, 8:22 am by Ilya Somin
Thomas is also a longtime critic of the Court’s interpretation of federal power over interstate commerce, most notably in his concurring opinion in United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 4:40 am by Edith Roberts
” Commentary on this week’s decision by the court to send Gloucester County School Board v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 1:57 pm by Amy Howe
” “I am confident,” Thomas concluded, that “whatever the correct interpretation of the foreign commerce power may be, it does not confer upon Congress a virtually plenary power over global economic activity. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito agreed with part or all of the result on narrow grounds, but each filed a separate opinion expressing discomfort with voting-rights precedents protecting minority political power. [read post]