Search for: "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives"
Results 61 - 80
of 109
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2013, 2:28 pm
As a result of the government’s refusal to defend DOMA, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), subsidized by fundraising efforts of the Republicans of the House of Representatives adopted the defense of DOMA, hired counsel to defend DOMA’s constitutionality, and was granted leave to intervene in the case. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 2:28 pm
As a result of the government’s refusal to defend DOMA, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), subsidized by fundraising efforts of the Republicans of the House of Representatives adopted the defense of DOMA, hired counsel to defend DOMA’s constitutionality, and was granted leave to intervene in the case. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 8:03 am
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives then intervened in the litigation to defend Section 3’s constitutionality. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 6:23 pm
House of Representatives, through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), defended the law instead. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (BLAG) took up the mantle instead and defended DOMA in court, including in the Windsor case just decided by the Supreme Court. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 7:22 am
In response, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3’s constitutionality. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 4:46 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 3:49 pm
Windsor 12-307Disclosure: Kevin Russell of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in this case.Issue: (1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their… [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 11:38 am
Windsor 12-307Disclosure: Kevin Russell of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in this case.Issue: (1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their… [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 4:56 am
Members of the House of Representatives, referred to as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (BLAG) intervened as a party defendant to defend DOMA. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 6:33 pm
The questions to be resolved by the Court in this case are a bit more complex: (1) whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state; (2) whether the executive branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the High Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (3) whether the Bipartisan… [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 1:09 pm
That argument, and others, have been put forward by various proponents of DOMA, including the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (the BLAG), an advisory group to the House leadership which voted 3-2 (on a party line basis) to advise the House to participate in litigation on DOMA and has intervened in Windsor and other cases. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 1:39 pm
Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, representing the federal government, fifteen minutes Arguing for a right to appeal for the House Republican leaders (the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s majority members), Paul D. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
Because the Justice Department had made clear its intent not to defend DOMA in court challenges (even as it continues to enforce the terms of DOMA), an organization known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG) sought to intervene as a defendant in the Windsor case in order to present a defense, on behalf of the DOMA and the House, to Windsor’s challenge. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
House of Representatives” (BLAG) in the court proceedings. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 12:26 pm
Windsor to consider the constitutionality of DOMA, I flagged my exchange with Matthew Hall (Georgia) in Fordham Law Review over whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) had standing to represent the United States in the case (as well as whether the Prop 8 sponsors had standing to represent California in the same-sex marriage case). [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 6:16 pm
At that point, according to the Harvard professor, “the United States had no Article III injury to present” in court. [read post]
19 Jan 2013, 4:18 am
In this post I discuss the second added question — namely, whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee of the House of Representatives (BLAG) has appellate standing. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 7:22 am
” Second, “whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives [BLAG] has Article III standing in this case. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 8:05 am
Windsor (12-307), the Court has asked the parties to brief and argue two Article III questions: “[w]hether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives [BLAG] has Article III standing in this case. [read post]
