Search for: "State v. Congress"
Results 5741 - 5760
of 29,294
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2018, 5:53 pm
Fund v. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 11:36 am
Knoetze v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 1:02 pm
" Valentine v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 2:30 am
” United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 8:11 am
Today, in Biden v. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 6:09 am
United States [read post]
5 Feb 2020, 4:23 am
The United States Supreme Court will hear Chiafalo v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 1:10 pm
Chrysler Group LLC v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 12:44 pm
Davis, Solem v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 6:55 am
In Kleindienst v. [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 5:17 am
The Court has held that, even if Congress is regulating "commerce among the states," it may not commandeer state executives and legislatures to assist it in enforcing federal law (though Congress can commandeer state judges). [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 8:10 am
By Eric Goldman Young v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 1:22 am
Today the Supreme Court hears oral argument in American Electric Power Co. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 5:16 am
Under Chevron, the agency’s interpretation might be due some deference, but not under King v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 7:34 am
The Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday morning, with United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 9:32 am
By John Ottaviani Buckles Management, LLC v. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 5:43 am
", he asks.While the SCOTUS does generally eschew significant constitutional pronouncements, it has a long-tradition of righting the wrongs of rogue state legislatures and an occasionally errant Congress. [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 3:52 pm
Supreme Court Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2021-2022update.htmlTwo petitions for certiorari were filed last week on 12/3/21: United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 3:13 pm
Peck, cases on state bills of credit in the Jacksonian era, the Legal Tender cases, and Pollock v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 10:50 am
” If a state law, in the opinion of Congress, ran counter to national interests, it must go; unconstitutionality would not be a requirement for dismissing it. [read post]
