Search for: "State v. Sotomayor" Results 4821 - 4840 of 5,862
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jan 2011, 6:19 am by Adam Chandler
At the First Amendment Center, Tony Mauro reflects on two recently granted cases—Commission on Ethics of the State of Nevada v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 4:43 am by Dennis Crouch
Sotomayor would seem like the natural for Pottawattamie County, which involved the immunity of state prosecutors from civil liability, because Sotomayor served as a state criminal prosecutor under New York City’s Robert Morgenthau. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 2:29 pm by Benjamin Wittes
In a dissenting statement, joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor, Justice Ginsburg stated: “I would grant the stay to afford the Court time to consider, in the ordinary course, important questions raised in this case and not resolved in Munaf v. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 9:38 am by Amy Howe
Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion in which he agreed with the decision not to hear McKee’s case, but he urged the justices to reconsider the seminal First Amendment cases at the heart of the dispute, including New York Times v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 7:34 am by Amy Howe
In a Term in which the Court was not considering the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Texas’s redistricting plans, and Arizona’s controversial efforts to regulate immigration, the Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 4:49 am by SHG
Then again, neither did President Obama, whose final nominee, Merrick Garland, was more likely to sit at Sam Alito’s lunch table than Sonia Sotomayor’s. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 1:16 pm by Josh Blackman
Justice Thomas dissented, and was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. [read post]
31 May 2024, 2:08 pm by Ben Sperry
Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech and struck a blow against government censorship-by-proxy yesterday in NRA v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 12:08 pm by Sandi Zellmer
Given the statutory ambiguities, readers may wonder why the Park Service’s reading of ANILCA and its own enabling acts would not be entitled to deference from the Supreme Court under Chevron v. [read post]