Search for: "Scalia v. United States"
Results 41 - 60
of 4,615
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2024, 4:48 pm
See United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 2:42 pm
A broad cross-ideological array of economists and land-use scholars have concluded that it is responsible for massive housing shortages in many parts of the United States, thereby cutting off millions of people – particularly the poor and minorities – from economic and social opportunities. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 6:05 am
No state, let alone the United States, engages in diplomatic relations with the cartels, nor do the cartels purport to maintain diplomatic relations. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 4:30 am
Exclusionary zoning is permitted under Euclid v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
They’d look for some little snippet of text in the Lanham Act; Scalia was a textualist but he could read a law in its entirety. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 2:04 pm
Furthermore, Story would expressly engage in a discussion of the Constitution's "officers of the United States"-language and "office under the United States" three sections later: in Section 791. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 4:47 pm
United States (1996)), and two came after (United States v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 2:16 pm
For example, in Smith v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 8:57 am
Justice Scalia was exactly right about this—and for that matter, so was Chief Justice Marshall, who clarified this very point in his circuit opinion in United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
" This shift followed the substantial and unprecedented government intervention in civic and economic life accompanying the United States' entry into World War I. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 7:11 pm
(As much as I respect Justice Scalia's vote in Texas v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 3:30 am
United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 11:12 pm
During oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
She was teeing up the Scalia line! [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:20 am
During oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:45 pm
And tomorrow, Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:45 am
United States. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am
For example, Lash, in discussing the question of ratifiers' views on "whether Section Three applied to future insurrections," states (at 45) that "[v]ery few ratifiers specifically addressed" the question, but those who did "came to different conclusions" on this point. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 8:53 pm
“In Trump v. [read post]