Search for: "Robert Thomas" Results 4041 - 4060 of 10,845
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2017, 8:40 pm by Dale Carpenter
” Id. at 2606; see also id. at 2623-24 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) (lamenting that cases involving selective tangible benefits “will not arise now that the Court has taken the drastic step of requiring every State to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
’ Richard Thomas and Stephen Cushion in the Hoot have examined Buzfeed’s coverage of the recent UK election. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 3:00 am by Scott Bomboy
It had been proposed in draft form by the Committee of Five (John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson) and it took two days for the Congress to agree on the edits. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 6:41 pm by Ted Smith
  The document was drafted  by the Committee of Five (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston.) [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 6:41 pm by Ted Smith
  The document was drafted  by the Committee of Five (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston.) [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 9:30 am
Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch wrote separately to say that while they agreed with the partial stay, they would have gone further, giving the government all it requested. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 2:56 am by Walter Olson
Wisconsin: landowner subjected to forced multi-parcel grouping loses regulatory takings case 5-3, Kennedy writing [opinion, Cato brief, Roger Pilon (Penn Central takings case was a train wreck, and SCOTUS should stop trying to build on it) and more, Ilya Somin (multi-factorial test proffered by Kennedy “a recipe for confusion, uncertainty, and constant litigation”), Gideon Kanner, Robert H. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 1:32 pm by Stephen McAllister
McWilliams chose the latter option, in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the majority, and Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito and Gorsuch in dissent. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 9:25 am by Charles Roth
There were four votes against Ruben Flores-Villar, but only two justices (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) did not join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion in full. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 4:42 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for The Huffington Post, Elizabeth Wydra argues that “the Court’s business rulings this Term advanced the steady upward trend for corporate America’s prospects at the Roberts Court. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 2:04 pm by Kedar Bhatia
The only sitting with an uneven distribution was January, when Chief Justice Roberts wrote two majority opinions (Expressions and Endrew F) but Justice Thomas issued none. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 9:41 am by Alice O'Brien
Over the objection of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts limited the sweep of the court’s opinion to the specific facts before it. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 7:32 am by Kevin Goldberg
Section III-C (Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Breyer):  Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan again agreed in theory, but not exact rationale, with the other four Justices on the issue of whether federal trademark registrations are a “government program. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
Commentary on Gorsuch’s Second Amendment views comes from Robyn Thomas and Adam Skaggs in an op-ed for the New York Daily News. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 12:34 pm by Josh Blackman
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch noted in a separate opinion that they would have allowed the executive order to go into effect in its entirety. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 11:23 am by Andrew Kent
Abassi was decided by a 4-2 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito joining Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 7:18 am by Erwin Chemerinsky
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote separately to say that they did not, and that they wanted to overrule Locke v. [read post]