Search for: "State v. Congress"
Results 6721 - 6740
of 29,295
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Mar 2020, 10:46 am
Sebelius, holding that the mandate is a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 6:17 pm
(Orin Kerr) In Kappos v. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:06 am
The Supreme Court’s big Second Amendment case this term was United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 9:07 am
(Cites to Erie, State Farm). [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 11:48 am
Department of State et al v. [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 11:48 am
Department of State et al v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 7:19 am
Gallagher and Mount Holly v. [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 8:43 am
’s “original” meaning, should the interpreter look to the 1969–1972 debates in Congress, to the early and mid-1970s debates in the initial ratifying states, to the 2010s debates in the decisive ratifying states such as Virginia and Illinois, or to all of these sources together? [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 8:28 am
’s “original” meaning, should the interpreter look to the 1969–1972 debates in Congress, to the early and mid-1970s debates in the initial ratifying states, to the 2010s debates in the decisive ratifying states such as Virginia and Illinois, or to all of these sources together? [read post]
29 Jan 2022, 9:07 am
States continue to legislate as if Section 230 (and the First Amendment) doesn’t exist, and states are also lining up behind legal challenges to undercut Section 230 expressly or indirectly. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 2:13 am
Co. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 9:36 am
Later, the Court of Justice of the EU brought a bit more balance into that analysis with its Huawei v. [read post]
1 May 2019, 8:26 am
Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 South Dakota v. [read post]
15 Feb 2023, 10:26 am
[8] Comcast v. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 6:34 am
CAAF held in 2023 in United States v. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 4:00 am
Last Monday, I wrote a lengthy post about why Congress should pass the pending, bipartisan bills to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired without good cause—and why the proffered constitutional objections to that legislation are based upon a combination of unsubstantiated (and contestable) assumptions about the current Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn Morrison v. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 5:00 am
The first is what we call “the Steel Seizure principle,” after Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 3:49 pm
(Another opinion in the file is Douglas’s dissent from the dismissal of Massachusetts v. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 11:24 am
Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) [read post]
