Search for: "US v. Powers" Results 561 - 580 of 37,112
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jul 2022, 11:20 am
By Jeffrey Karp, Senior Counsel, and Edward Mahaffey, Legal Research and Writing Attorney On June 30, 2022, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Clean Power Plan ("CPP"), limiting the agency's authority to address climate change, in the case West Virginia v. [read post]
27 Oct 2006, 10:37 pm
If so, the treaty power can't justify abrogating the copyright clause any more than it could justify abrogating Sixth Amendment rights, as in Reed v. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 2:13 am by Jack Chin
New York, invalidated a similar New York law allegedly justified by the police power, explaining that "no definition of [the police power], and no urgency for its use, can authorize a State to exercise it in regard to a subject-matter which has been confided exclusively to the discretion of Congress by the Constitution. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 8:45 am
In any event, a whole life term was not an irreducible sentence since the Home Secretary could always use his statutory power to release a prisoner whose continued imprisonment would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. [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]
14 Jun 2010, 4:13 am by Dianne Saxe
[v] Sections 62.0.1 and 70(h) of the Planning Act provide that the York Energy Centre project would no longer be subject to land use approvals. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 8:10 am by Robert Chesney, Steve Vladeck
  We compare and contrast this outcome with the use of military detention in the case of John Doe, of Doe v. [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 10:06 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
In other words, the state is seeking to use Castro-Huerta to restore its power over non-Indian offenders. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 6:02 am by Derek T. Muller
The case is really about one set of facts: the state power to penalize or replace electors who cast a vote contrary to statewide popular vote winner.I think some of the Court’s language could plausibly be used in other contexts. [read post]