Search for: "Barrett"
Results 261 - 280
of 6,273
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Mar 2024, 10:00 am
With the liberal and conservative wings of the Court entrenched, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett likely to decide outcome of the case The post Supreme Court Hears Argument in Biden Administration Social Media Coercion Case first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
Mara Elliott Says Ethics Commission Needs Greater Independence” by JW August for Times of San Diego National: “Judge Cannon Rejects Trump’s Attack on the Espionage Act” by Perry Stein and Devlin Barrett (Washington Post) for MSN National: “Supreme Court Rules Public Officials Can Sometimes Be Sued for Blocking Critics on Social Media” by Mark Sherman for Associated Press News Lobbying New York: “Assembly Speaker Carl… [read post]
16 Mar 2024, 6:35 pm
[It will be harder for conservative litigants in blue states and liberal litigants in red states to obtain statewide relief. [read post]
16 Mar 2024, 4:05 pm
Barrett v. [read post]
16 Mar 2024, 1:03 pm
I’m convinced that Justice Barrett’s concurrence in the Colorado Ballot Access case, Trump v. [read post]
US Supreme Court rules public officials can be sued for blocking users on social media in some cases
16 Mar 2024, 11:28 am
However, Barrett also considered the effect of blocking a user on Facebook, which prevents them from commenting on any of a page’s posts. [read post]
16 Mar 2024, 6:39 am
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court created a two step test, holding that that a public official’s social media conduct only qualifies as state action under §1983 if the official: possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on the particular matter at issue, and purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts. [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 9:18 am
From Justice Barrett's unanimous opinion this morning in Lindke v. [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 8:42 am
In a unanimous decision on Friday by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices sent Freed’s case back for another look. [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 3:00 am
United States Supreme Court Justices Barrett and Sotomayor are joining forces to promote civility. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 2:05 pm
Western University's Acting Ombudsperson, Whitney Barrett, says her caseload declined 15.8% in the most recent academic year. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 12:54 pm
Barrett was trying to explain why the Court should avoid politics and turn down the temperature on these sorts of election issues. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 7:17 am
Here’s the Wednesday morning read: Barrett, Sotomayor Emphasize Harmony on Heels of Public Chiding (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law) New Federal Judiciary Rule Will Limit ‘Forum Shopping’ by Plaintiffs (Mattathias Schwartz, The New York Times) Abused teen in Snap case asks US Supreme Court to revisit internet publisher immunity (Alison Frankel, Reuters) The Potential for Chaos in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Colorado Ballot Decision (Gerard N. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 7:33 pm
Justices Sotomayor and Barrett discuss relationships on the Court (also via the NYT):A week after Justice Amy Coney Barrett chastised Justice Sonia Sotomayor for choosing “to amplify disagreement with stridency” in a Supreme Court decision on former President Donald J. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 6:57 pm
” And Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “Barrett, Sotomayor Emphasize Harmony on Heels of Public Chiding; Justices tout collegiality at embattled Supreme Court; Barrett earlier took issue with tone of liberal concurrence. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 7:02 am
Officers descended upon the surrounding neighborhoods and found the vehicle with the child unharmed near Barrett Avenue and Hayes Street. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 7:03 pm
Within 20 minutes, officers located the stolen vehicle and the child in the area of Barrett Avenue and Hayes Street. [read post]
10 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
”Justice Amy Comey Barrett registered that same anxiety in her concurring opinion. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 12:51 pm
The per curiam opinion concluded that federal legislation is necessary to enforce Section 3's Disqualification Clause, yet even Barrett's concern-trolling concurrence argued that it was unnecessary to reach "the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced," because the Court could have saved Trump's hide simply by ruling that Colorado could not disqualify him. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 7:16 am
Justice Barrett wrote separately to explain she only agreed with part of the majority per curiam opinion. [read post]
