Search for: "Jackson v. Barrett" Results 381 - 400 of 572
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2024, 3:00 am by jonathanturley
While portrayed by pundits and press in strictly ideological terms, it actually produced an interesting line up with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voting with the majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voting in dissent. [read post]
30 Mar 2023, 10:58 am by Jeffrey Bellin
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts offered hope to both sides. [read post]
7 Nov 2023, 2:47 pm by Amy Howe
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 11:48 am by Mark Walsh
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is first up today with a straightforward summary of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 10:44 am by Amy Howe
’” In a solo dissent, Thomas criticized what he characterized as the majority’s “surprising and misplaced reliance on New York Times v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
Justice Thomas writes for himself and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 5:00 am by Eric Segall
By Eric SegallDuring the Supreme Court's oral argument in Dobbs v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
Alito wants to play doubles pickleball with Ginni Thomas, Jesse Barrett, and Patrick Jackson on that same spot. [read post]
  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted to approve Biden’s request for the court to restrict Texas’ actions. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 9:29 pm by Jacob Sapochnick
In a 5-4 vote, the decision stated that Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would have allowed the Biden administration to pursue the policy. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 3:38 am by Edith Roberts
Barrett points out the influence of Professor Robert Cushman on Justice Elena Kagan’s dissenting opinion in Seila Law v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 4:03 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Absent a confidential or fiduciary relationship, there is no duty to disclose, and meresilence, without identifying some act of deception, does not constitute a concealment actionable as fraud” (NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v 573 Jackson Ave. [read post]