Search for: "State v. Congress"
Results 521 - 540
of 28,963
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2014, 9:00 pm
Just recently, in Riley v. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 5:42 am
”[27] As Justice Thomas explained, the Framers wrote the Congressional Elections Clause merely to prevent states from neglecting to send delegates to Congress, by imposing an affirmative obligation on them to do so. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 5:42 am
”[27] As Justice Thomas explained, the Framers wrote the Congressional Elections Clause merely to prevent states from neglecting to send delegates to Congress, by imposing an affirmative obligation on them to do so. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 6:00 am
North Dakota In Quill v. [read post]
27 May 2019, 2:19 pm
This is called the “Feres doctrine,” after the Supreme Court decision, Feres v. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 10:26 pm
Based on what Bloomberg reported earlier this month, a second United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 12:25 pm
As the Supreme Court held in Bush v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 12:45 am
This morning, the United States Supreme Court opens its new term with a number of international law and executive power v. power of Congress cases. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 4:00 am
In 1995, the United States launched the first NAFTA trade challenge.[9] It was the first and only NAFTA Chapter 20 Canada-U.S. dispute as the agreement’s state-to-state provisions fell into disuse. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 11:59 am
" Biden v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 10:22 am
Again, as in DG, much of the commentary about tribal courts depended on how much work Congress did in enacting the Indian Civil Rights Act. [read post]
27 Oct 2007, 1:40 am
State v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 12:15 pm
On December 14th, in United States v. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 1:27 pm
The Appeals Court said, "Having reviewed the dismissal de novo, assuming that the facts stated in the complaint are true, Lambeth v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm
There's simply no reason at all to think that the 2017 Congress believed that anyone (no reasonable person, anyway) would purchase unwanted insurance because of a "sense of legal obligation" engendered by the 2017 statutory amendment.But even if there were some such unreasonable people out there (such as, perhaps, the individual plaintiffs in the case) who mistakenly read the amended Section 5000A to require them to purchase insurance, those people--like the… [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
The challengers won in the lower court, and the Supreme Court granted review last fall to consider not only whether the state law can survive, but also whether the lower court used the right test in making its decision: that court held that because the Constitution allows Congress to make or change election rules established by the states, Congress can veto any state laws relating to elections, even if it doesn’t make clear that it… [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 1:46 pm
Plaintiffs claim that global warming, to which Defendants contribute as the "five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States and . . . among the largest in the world," Connecticut v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 7:00 am
Fortunately, Congress can overrule the decision by amending the act to allow states to declare some arbitration agreements unconscionable. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 6:35 am
In particular, Congress added the “treatment as a state” (“TAS”) provision in CAA § 301(d), 42 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 8:05 am
The post WashU Expert: SCOTUS decision in United States v. [read post]
