Search for: "State v. Congress" Results 4001 - 4020 of 29,283
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 May 2022, 2:54 pm by Ilya Somin
The same goes for denying the franchise to some of the mentally ill (as many states do). [read post]
1 May 2022, 8:54 am by Eric Goldman
Backpage * District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. [read post]
30 Apr 2022, 2:11 pm by Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle
As the Court explained, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act in 1978 to eliminate regulation of air carrier prices. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 8:50 am by Tess Bridgeman
Amidst growing pressure from Congress, and following a series of high-level resignations, the administration announced it would leave behind a small contingent of U.S. troops indefinitely. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 7:44 am by Dan Farber
Court watchers and environmentalists are waiting with bated breath for the Supreme Court to rule on West Virginia v. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Given Congress’s power to change the numbers of justices on the Court, possibilities (other than the frequently discussed 18-year staggered terms idea) could be considered, which could be implemented by statute. [read post]
Justice Breyer asked why Oklahoma could not just go to Congress for relief, as all other states act under the assumption that state jurisdiction is forbidden absent congressional authorization. [read post]
During the Federal Trade Commission’s April 28 open meeting, Commissioners utilized the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 5:55 am by jonathanturley
In 1895, Congress sought to impose an income tax, but was stopped by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 5:01 am by Farzaneh Badiei
But how is Apple’s App Store governed in the two nation-states? [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 12:56 pm by Eugene Volokh
Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984) (requiring that a facially content-neutral ban on camping must be "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech"); United States v. [read post]