Search for: "South Dakota v. Dole"
Results 41 - 60
of 104
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Apr 2010, 6:40 am
” In the key case of South Dakota v. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 6:01 pm
(Perhaps South Dakota v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 4:42 pm
Whitt v. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 6:30 am
Most famously, all fifty states make 21 the legal drinking age because in the most important pre-Sebelius conditional funding case, South Dakota v. [read post]
4 Sep 2024, 7:15 am
In South Dakota v. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 4:26 am
Under South Dakota v. [read post]
23 Oct 2010, 5:28 am
Under South Dakota v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 9:00 pm
Do South Dakota v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 2:30 pm
The Court relied on, seemingly modified, and strengthened at least two existing elements of the test for conditional spending articulated in South Dakota v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 3:31 pm
” The Supreme Court had indicated that “coercive” conditional grants are unconstitutional as far back as the 1930s, and reiterated that point in South Dakota v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am
Participating States must also comply with various other requirements, including those that protect against waste, fraud, and abuse; those that protect the health and safety, and the privacy, of Medicaid beneficiaries; those that ensure that the States adequately accomplish the goals of the program (see the recent decision in Douglas v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 7:54 pm
Overrule South Dakota v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:34 pm
Here, the leading precedent in South Dakota v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 8:35 am
Supreme Court held that Congress may, within reasonable limits, attach conditions to federal funding provided to states in South Dakota v. [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 11:45 am
They alleged that a conditional spending provision was inconsistent with South Dakota v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
One difficulty is that, as the Supreme Court stated in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 6:26 am
And by conditioning 100% of Medicaid funding on states either setting up insurance exchanges or greatly expanding Medicaid coverage, Congress is “coercing” the states (See South Dakota v Dole in which conditioning 5% of highway funds was deemed to be insufficiently coercive) and thereby unconstitutionally “commandeering” their legislative and executive branches (see New York v U.S. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 4:26 pm
That notion was contained in a single sentence in the Court’s 1987 decision in South Dakota v. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 2:16 pm
On one hand, it is clear from cases like South Dakota v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 6:00 am
Cleburne Living Center (1985) Rehnquist Court: South Dakota v. [read post]
