Search for: "State v. Liberty" Results 6101 - 6120 of 9,912
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2014, 9:15 am by Maureen Johnston
American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina 14-35Issue: Whether the government speech doctrine permits the state of North Carolina to promote its “Choose Life” message through a specialty license plate program over which it exercises complete and effective control without also offering a pro-choice specialty plate. [read post]
19 Nov 2018, 7:35 am by David Post
[For a summary of the many studies in this area, see the Scholars' Amicus Brief in Vasquez v. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 6:49 am by Jeff Gamso
Holmes probably believed what he wrote in Abrams, just as he believed what her wrote in Schenck v. [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 11:49 am by Daniel Schwartz
Already, some employers have started to say that they are going to cover the costs for employees in certain states to fly to other states to receive an abortion. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 3:43 am by Edith Roberts
Patent and Trademark Office v. [read post]
24 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Post’s new book, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921-1930, is the latest installment of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
It was famously rejected in McCulloch v. [read post]
14 Apr 2025, 2:00 am by INFORRM
Human rights organisation, Liberty, published a press release. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 6:57 am
ACSblog discusses the split among state courts about how to interpret the Court’s ruling last Term in Caperton v. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 7:46 pm
United States (08-1595) – originally Conference 10.30 Noriega v. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 9:00 pm
 The United States Supreme Court remains a place that in a given month can inflict much harm that will continue for years if not decades, and that might then turn around and deliver a stunning victory for civil liberties. [read post]
6 May 2010, 7:39 am by Meg Martin
The Court declined to address Appellant’s assertions that his religious liberties have been violated by the DOC and the WSP. [read post]