Search for: "Scalia v. United States"
Results 4201 - 4220
of 4,639
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Apr 2009, 7:02 pm
Justice Souter filed a brief concurrence, printed here in its entirety: I am not through regretting that my position in United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 6:50 pm
United States Docket Filing | Questions Presented Case Number: 07-10441 On Appeal From: USCA-3 Date Argued: January 21, 2009 Date Decided: April 6, 2009 5-4; Vacated and Remanded Majority: Souter(m), Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent: Alito(d), Roberts, Scalia, Thomas Days between argument and opinion: 75 (42) United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 8:15 am
Today's second and final ruling issued in United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 7:10 am
The Court has released the opinion in United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 6:59 am
United States, and now Harbison v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 7:40 pm
United States, 128 S. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 8:56 am
More recently, in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 8:56 am
More recently, in United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 5:23 am
United States, the Supreme Court wrestled with how to make sense of what went on behind closed doors in a jury deliberation that produced several acquittals but also deadlocked on other factually related counts. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 3:29 pm
Freedus responded by referring to a Fifth Circuit case (United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 1:27 pm
Shah whether he agreed that under United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 8:08 am
United States, No. 07-9712. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 7:02 am
The decision below, which held for the United States, is affirmed in a 7-2 opinion by Justice Scalia. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 8:43 am
At a minimum, a 90-minute documentary, even though a bitingly critical attack on a specific candidate, leaving little doubt of what it wanted voters to do, may wind up with constitutional protection, it appeared after the Court had heard Citizens United v. [read post]
22 Mar 2009, 4:04 am
Tuesday on Citizens United v. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 9:49 am
One answer might lie in the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that no state shall “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States. [read post]
14 Mar 2009, 10:36 am
United States, 334 U.S. 742, 767 n.9 (1948) (citation omitted), as well as the Supreme Court’s directive in Boumediene that “[i]n considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, proper deference must be accorded to the political branches,” 128 S.Ct. at 2276 (2008) (citing United States v. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 11:46 pm
Thus, there is reason to question whether the United States is acting in accordance with the laws of war it claims as authority.Additionally, to cite just 2 additional concerns (our colleague Deborah Pearlstein cites others in her Opinio Juris post), yesterday's Memorandum:ââ [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 7:22 am
Stanford student John Dalton discusses last week’s oral argument in No. 08-5274, Dean v. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 3:42 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
