Search for: "CANNING v. DOJ"
Results 741 - 760
of 2,715
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2020, 3:13 pm
Without going that far it can certainly be said that the ADA in its current form and the refusal of DOJ to make sensible web accessibility regulations makes these contradictions inevitable. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 1:38 pm
Miller (Wikipedia) U.S. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 4:14 pm
If you also want to review the new changes to the Justice Manual, you can see them here. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 9:39 am
Department of Justice (DOJ): As we have recently seen the AbilityOne OIG is actively making referrals to Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors around the country. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 7:20 pm
The California v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 8:11 am
DOJ had sought a preliminary injunction but the court agreed to a request by all parties to stay the case after California agreed not to enforce the law pending final resolution of Mozilla v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 3:50 am
What California v. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 7:38 am
The DOJ argued that courts categorically can’t review any presidential emergency actions based on national security concerns. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 12:37 pm
Facebook, US v. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 11:15 am
” Closely following the playbook of the US v. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 3:01 am
In that context, the Ninth Circuit's FTC v. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 9:47 am
Madrid and Pereida v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 8:44 am
Unlike Bolger v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 3:05 pm
² The report can be found at DOJ report on disabilities and incarceration. [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 4:54 pm
“Substantial compliance” can be interpreted two ways. [read post]
1 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
How is this relevant for California v. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 10:43 am
Dixon said in the Department of Justice (DOJ) press release. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 7:26 am
The government must overcome both the statutory and constitutional problems to uphold the respective EOs, and I doubt the DOJ can overcome either. [read post]
25 Sep 2020, 12:57 pm
Filed in 1974, US v. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 7:26 am
Again, this argument can be weaponized to justify targeting any speech venue that caters to minority communities, by claiming that the community members should integrate into tools not designed for them, so this is another pro-censorial argument from the DOJ. [read post]
