Search for: "State v. Congress" Results 2681 - 2700 of 29,280
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2023, 8:00 am by Guest Blogger
Often, it seemed to me, this emphasis came at the expense of exploring the work of Congress, state legislatures, administrative agencies, or even state, trial, and appellate courts. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 7:45 pm by Jim Sedor
Supreme Court said it cannot identify the person who in the spring leaked a draft of the opinion that overturned Roe v. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 8:00 am by Guest Blogger
  To be sure, Congress can overrule a presidential veto, but, over our entire history, presidents have been successful in sustaining their vetoes roughly 95% of the time. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 5:01 am by Michael Rosman
Some may argue that since Congress has not done anything about the interpretations that essentially have turned Title IX into a law requiring female teams, we should just accept that state of affairs as if Congress had enacted it. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 8:00 am by Mark Graber
  When Democrats regained control of Congress in the 1890s, they immediately repealed legislation implementing the Fifteenth Amendment. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 2:33 pm by Ilya Somin
[Like the Sixth Circuit before it, the Eleventh ruled that the requirement that states receiving stimulus money refrain from cutting taxes was never clearly authorized by Congress. ] On January 20, in West Virginia v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 9:52 am by Eric Goldman
The threats are everywhere: Congress, state legislatures, the Supreme Court, internationally. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 8:00 am by Guest Blogger
One part of my Foreword is an investigation into the role of race in two of the Court’s biggest cases last Term—New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 6:30 am by Stephen Griffin
  Most amendments sent to the states by Congress have been approved. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 5:00 am by Unknown
” But the whistleblower’s cert petition argues that Sarbanes-Oxley shifts the burden to the employer to prove a lack of retaliatory intent as an affirmative defense (Murray v. [read post]