Search for: "State v. Congress" Results 7221 - 7240 of 29,295
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Feb 2020, 8:28 am by David Pozen
’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, 8:09 am by Margo Schlanger
The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in Lomax v. [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 6:48 am by Will Baude
It does seem perverse to think that Congress can eliminate state law damages for constitutional violations without either Congress or the courts providing an alternative . [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 2:21 pm by Unknown
Harrington (Prisoner Civil Rights)State Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2020.htmlHwal'Bay Ba J Enterpises v. [read post]
Another Year, Another Attempt in Congress to Ban Non-Competes Nationwide Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) introduced legislation in 2019 entitled the Workforce Mobility Act (“WMA”). [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 9:41 am by Yi W. Stewart
Rather than acknowledging a fiduciary’s consent as “lawful consent” under the federal statute (id.; see Ajemian v Yahoo! [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 8:25 am by Gabriel Chin
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 3:53 am by SHG
The problem was that while Congress was kind enough to establish a right to sue state actors for constitutional violations, to the extent the Supreme Court hasn’t emasculated the law with Qualified Immunity, Congress left out its own. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 3:50 am by Edith Roberts
Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that during yesterday’s argument in United States v. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 11:29 am by Patricia Hughes
However, it was also the rule of law that advanced religious freedom in Canada (in the 1959 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Roncarelli v. [read post]