Search for: "Matter of Brown" Results 481 - 500 of 9,123
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2023, 3:26 pm by Bobby Dexter
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a concurring opinion, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. [read post]
Taamneh, meanwhile, focused on the substantive matter of platforms’ potential ATA and JASTA liability. [read post]
18 May 2023, 11:30 am by Heather Douglas
As Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada recently identified, the chronic underfunding of our courts is causing delay in civil and criminal matters. [read post]
Although the court was unanimous in its holding, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurring opinion stressing that the IRS’s ability to issue summons is not unrestricted. [read post]
16 May 2023, 11:43 am by Patricia Hughes
The decision most relevant to Working Families is Harper, since it dealt with the same issue of restrictions on third-party advertising during elections, albeit federal elections, among other matters. [read post]
16 May 2023, 2:51 am by Seán Binder
DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS – TRUMP LEGAL MATTERS Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, asked a judge to dismiss former President Trump’s efforts to disqualify her from leading an investigation into whether he and his allies interfered in the 2020 election. [read post]
15 May 2023, 10:57 am by Amy Howe
The justices granted review in two cases presenting this question, Brown v. [read post]
15 May 2023, 3:50 am by SHG
A protest against his terror against Black & brown communities, public education, libraries, migrants, health & safety. [read post]
14 May 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Robert Brown and Eli Wald at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law. [read post]
13 May 2023, 6:08 am by Ezra Rosser
Gonzales (vgonzal2@unm.edu) and Tomar Pierson-Brown (tnb25@pitt.edu). [read post]
12 May 2023, 11:45 am by Ben Sperry
Supreme Court found that a statute establishing strict liability for selling obscene materials violated the First Amendment because: By dispensing with any requirement of knowledge of the contents of the book on the part of the seller, the ordinance tends to impose a severe limitation on the public’s access to constitutionally protected matter. [read post]