Search for: "U.S. v. Witt"
Results 461 - 480
of 536
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
Mesa, 15-118, which asks whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated when a U.S. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:30 am
The dispute is less eschatological than you might think: this case involves whether the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures applies extraterritorially to a situation in which a U.S. [read post]
7 Jan 2021, 8:28 am
The U.S. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 6:00 am
” And moving beyond the courts, oaths might even be beyond the capacity of other members of the legislature to judge: in Bond v. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 5:37 am
The administration, after all, has failed to provide any credible evidence of any real “emergency” at the U.S. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 9:27 am
The Hill reports that the EU will consider several different plans to require backdoors in encryption products this June, according to EU Commissioner for Human Rights Věra Jourová. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 5:43 pm
Also see Witte v. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 5:00 pm
See No. 16-668, 2017 WL 4339924 (U.S. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 5:00 pm
See No. 16-668, 2017 WL 4339924 (U.S. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 10:50 am
The U.S. embassy t [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 6:11 am
” The road map and accompanying grand jury evidence were submitted to U.S. [read post]
12 Apr 2014, 6:55 am
Benjamin Wittes. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 6:49 am
The Supreme Court in Hamdi v. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 10:23 am
The Wall Street Journal tells us that Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 6:00 am
The U.S. [read post]
23 May 2017, 10:45 am
In an interesting examination of the role of social media platforms and terrorism, the U.S. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 8:47 am
In Clinton v. [read post]
19 May 2021, 8:47 am
As Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes have recently described, the McGahn saga and litigation has taken a somewhat tortuous path. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 2:52 pm
This scenario—high-ranking officials wielding the immense power of the U.S. government without being subject to the advice and consent of the Senate—is exactly what the Founders sought to avoid when they included the Appointments Clause in the Constitution. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 5:16 am
Miller and Smith v. [read post]
