Search for: "Barrett v. Smith"
Results 21 - 40
of 229
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2024, 12:30 pm
In Trump v. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 8:38 am
This brief, which is on behalf of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and the Landmark Legal Foundation, contends that Special Counsel Jack Smith is not an "Officer of the United States. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 9:11 pm
And Judges Ho, and Smith each had one. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 12:34 pm
New Relists McKesson v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 2:04 pm
”] [This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman.] [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 2:16 pm
For example, in Smith v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 2:41 pm
Term Limits v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:47 pm
Griswold v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, several or all of the Justices might be inclined to decide the case on some ground that doesn’t require the Court to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to be President, if such an “off-ramp” solution is legally available. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm
Ct. 2355, 2376–84 (2023) (Barrett, J., concurring). [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:09 am
Supreme Court, Colorado Republican State Central Committee v. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 3:00 am
Yahoo News – Michael Bender and Anjali Huynh (New York Times) | Published: 11/29/2023 Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 6:41 am
Ozimals * 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am
Because the government now agrees with petitioner Paul Erlinger that judges cannot constitutionally make that finding, the court appointed Nick Harper, former clerk to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, to argue in support of the judgment below. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 3:07 pm
" Bruen continues, "In other words, this 19th-century evidence was 'treated as mere confirmation of what the Court thought had already been established.'" See also Justice Barrett's concurrence in Bruen, quoting Espinoza v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 5:51 am
Smith v. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
Today's Court has not yet overruled Smith, but it has narrowed the instances in which Smith can apply. [read post]
8 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
Influencers like Isabella Barrett, 15, are worth millions for “livin the life girl! [read post]