Search for: "United States v. Carvin"
Results 21 - 40
of 42
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
The question in this case is whether Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.To discuss the case, we have Michael Carvin, who is a Partner at Jones Day.- See more at:… [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
The question in this case is whether Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.To discuss the case, we have Michael Carvin, who is a Partner at Jones Day.- See more at:… [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 10:10 am
The hearing will also include testimony from Anthony Johnstone, a University of Montana School of Law assistant professor who was Montana Solicitor when he drafted an amicus brief for 26 states in the campaign finance challenge of Citizens United v. [read post]
22 May 2012, 1:45 am
Since Marbury v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 7:07 am
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, my colleague Randy Barnett, who's representing the private plaintiffs in the ACA case, has written a post focusing upon Justice Kennedy's expressed concern that in order for the Court to uphold section 5000A of the ACA, it might have to issue what Randy calls an "unbounded" opinion, one that would permit Congress to require the purchase of virtually any product--an outcome that Justice Kennedy fears would “change the relationship of the… [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 8:25 am
To be sure, during the oral argument, Justice Breyer may have undermined the effectiveness of his hypo by appearing to agree with Michael Carvin (for the NFIB) that the argument for federal power in the inoculation case is of a piece with the argument for federal power in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 11:53 am
Health expenses are one of the biggest contributors to bankruptcy in the United States. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 7:02 pm
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Bond v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 3:25 pm
Department of Health and Human Services v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
The United States also argues that the mandate is necessary and proper to carry out the law's insurance reforms. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 7:02 am
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. (11-393), United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 3:00 am
Circuit in the Seven Sky v. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 12:46 pm
’s Bancroft represents the state attorneys general, and Michael Carvin of Jones Day is counsel to the NFIB. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 1:38 pm
But these were – are – real lawsuits led by experienced counsel (who now include former Solicitor General Paul Clement and renowned appellate advocate Michael Carvin). [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 1:12 pm
Sykes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as the moderator. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 10:36 am
(Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead & Watts v. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 4:43 am
Respondents' Argument US Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the case for the United States, which previously intervened in the case. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 1:36 pm
The Respondents divided their argument, with Solicitor General Elena Kagan arguing for the United States (as intervenor) and Jeffrey Lamken from MoloLamken LLP for the PCAOB. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 2:35 pm
Carvin of Jones Day in Washington (30 minutes), for the United States will be Solicitor General Elena Kagan (20 minutes), and for the Board will be Jeffrey A. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 6:42 am
Times by Jeffrey Kayes discusses the possibility that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano may weigh in on the Arizona statute at issue in United States Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
