Search for: "THOMAS et al v. TRUMP" Results 41 - 60 of 90
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jul 2019, 6:01 pm by Marty Lederman
  (Indeed, even former President Bush and serious individuals who've worked for Trump and seen the deviancy up close--think Mattis/McMaster, et al. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 5:16 pm by Eugene Volokh
Cunningham, et al. as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Neither Party, In Re: Donald J. [read post]
7 Apr 2019, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
Following Recent Cases in Media Law at the European Court of Human Rights, van der Hof et al. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 10:46 am by David Greene
”8 These tactics were largely effective: because of the lawsuits, the New York Times pulled its Alabama reporter for several years, sharply limiting its original reporting on events there.9 Both NYT v Sullivan and Abernathy et al. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:22 am by Matthew Scott Johnson
Shaw et. al., Intellectual Disability, the Death Penalty, and Jurors, 58 JURIMETRICS J. 437 (2018). 11. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 2:22 pm by Adam Feldman
A slew of Supreme Court researchers have written fascinating pieces about the justices’ case citations (Two of the many are from Fowler et al. (2007) and Cross et al. (2010).). [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 11:16 am by Adam Feldman
Consovoy’s briefs were on behalf of Former Attorneys and the Southeastern Legal Foundation in the Husted and Trump v. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 10:20 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
Holder (Susan SEVEN–SKY, Also Known as Susan Sevensky, et al., Appellants v. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 4:26 am by Edith Roberts
’”At Casetext, David Boyle surveys the “’Christian’ amicus briefs” “either for Petitioners, Trump et al., or for neither party. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 11:50 am by William Ford
In light of Zuckerberg’s admission during congressional testimony that the company has a responsibility to use its tools for good, and his acknowledgement that “terrorist propaganda” constitutes “clearly bad activity,” the attorney seeks an order voiding Garaufis’s prior decision and reviving the case—Force et al. v. [read post]