Search for: "Leah Litman"
Results 401 - 420
of 464
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2019, 4:04 am
At Take Care, Leah Litman considers how the issues in Gundy v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 4:05 am
Providing analysis at NBC News, Leah Litman maintains that although “[i]t’s not the Supreme Court’s job to give Republicans the laws they couldn’t pass in the legislature,” “the Trump administration implies that it is, … asking the court to peel back some of the most significant provisions of the Affordable Care Act after Congress failed to dismantle the law. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 4:01 am
” Leah Litman analyzes yesterday’s argument in Shular v. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 4:25 am
” At Take Care, Leah Litman and Lark Turner take a close look at the issues in McCarthan v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 4:11 am
” Briefly: For this blog, Leah Litman explains the factors behind the settlement agreement in Williams v. [read post]
2 Oct 2022, 1:11 pm
I appeared on this virtual panel at Harvard Law School on "Law and Politics in the Roberts Court" with Amanda Hollis-Brudsky, Adam Liptak, Leah Litman, and Janai Nelson, where I took the unpopular position that the Court tries to pursue a vision of law that is quite independent of politics, even though the Justices were put there by politics. [read post]
16 May 2019, 9:05 pm
Wade, according to Leah Litman of the University of California, Irvine School of Law in a column for The New York Times. [read post]
4 May 2020, 3:58 am
” At Slate, Leah Litman worries that with its upcoming decision in Seila Law v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 9:01 pm
As Professor Leah Litman writes on Take Care, the principles of judicial deference that underwrite the Court’s travel ban ruling leave it open to The People to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 3:58 am
Leah Litman analyzes the opinion for this blog. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 5:00 am
Today I'll take as my point of departure the amicus brief with which I'm most familiar--one filed on behalf of me and 12 other constitutional law scholars (Lee Bollinger, Erwin Chemerinsky, Sherry Colb, Dan Farber, Joanna Grossman, Leah Litman, Martha Minow, Jane Schacter, Suzanna Sherry, Geof Stone, David Strauss, and Larry Tribe).The core of our argument goes like this: Mississippi is plainly wrong in its contention that the abortion right has no connection to other… [read post]
10 Mar 2024, 6:30 am
For the Balkinization symposium on Richard L. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 12:25 pm
Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
Some scholars, such as Leah Litman, have argued with some force that these cases are best understood as meaning no more than that Congress cannot require new states to submit to conditions that Congress lacks power to impose on existing states. [read post]
24 May 2024, 6:51 pm
[This piece is cross-posted and was originally published in the Yale J. on Reg.: Notice & Comment blog] Administrative law is almost certain to undergo monumental change during the Supreme Court’s current Term. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:06 am
Administrative law is almost certain to undergo monumental change during the Supreme Court’s current Term. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 4:11 am
” At Take Care, Leah Litman contends that if the court “is serious about the reasoning and principles it articulated in Masterpiece Cakeshop, and it should be, then it should reject several of the arguments that have been used [in Trump v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 4:00 am
’” In the most recent episode of First Mondays (podcast), which features “twice as many women … as there were at the Supreme Court podium in the whole December sitting,” Leah Litman guest host Jaime Santos recap last week’s arguments. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 3:52 am
” In the latest episode of Strict Scrutiny (podcast), Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray and Leah Litman “recap the argument in June Medical Services v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 4:15 am
” At Take Care, Leah Litman and Abigail DeHart argue that “many of the Court’s recent decisions tell us what we need to know [about Trump v. [read post]
