Search for: "REED v. UNITED STATES" Results 621 - 640 of 1,053
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2010, 6:35 am by James Bickford
”  The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times encourages the Court to “show the same solicitude for free speech” in Schwarzenegger as it did in striking down the speech restriction at issue in United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 6:01 am by Josh Blackman
Professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar have put forward an Intermediate View: the elected President is an "officer of the United States," but members of Congress are not. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 5:30 pm by Colin O'Keefe
– Jackson, Mississippi attorney Philip Thomas on the blog Mississippi Litigation Review and Commentary Monday Morning Regulatory Review – 10/13/14: Hobby Lobby Implementation; Jumping the Gun on a Final Rule; Extended Waters of the United States; and EPA Rules to Watch – Washington, DC lawyer Lee Beck on his blog, the Federal Regulations Advisor For more of the best, check out LXBN, a complete review of the top insight and commentary across the LexBlog Network. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 9:26 am by Anthony Gaughan
" He contends that "when we disagree over what the Constitution means in public schools, we engage in an argument that is fundamentally about what sort of nation we want the United States to be. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 11:28 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The United States District Court, Northern District, Dallas Division, issued an opinion on July 27, 2011, in the case styled, Great American Insurance Company v. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 12:41 pm by Andrew Hamm
Todd Gaziano and Reed Hopper for Town Hall preview United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 6:00 am by Tim Sitzmann
The cease and desist order can enjoin defendants from certain activities within the United States. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm by INFORRM
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]