Search for: "Institute For Justice v. IRS"
Results 61 - 80
of 262
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2020, 3:54 am
On this second day of this unusual May session, the justices will hear – literally, only hear – oral argument in USAID v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 8:13 pm
Here is how Justice Scalia described it in his dissent to the same-sex marriage decision (Obergefell v. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 12:30 am
In California v. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 8:56 am
Dean Acheson once asked him what old Justice Harlan had been like. [read post]
2 May 2023, 9:01 pm
Wade in Dobbs v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 1:08 am
Power [1985] IEHC 1; [1985] IR 648. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 6:13 pm
The Justice Department filed a brief today (available here) in a federal case in California. [read post]
2 May 2023, 4:00 am
Later, Chief Justice John Marshall also was burned in effigy after writing the famous opinion in Marbury v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 7:30 am
The justices vacated the ruling by the U.S. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 10:51 pm
Maybe Justice Breyer supported the Ten Commandments display in Van Orden v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 8:27 am
1A: many complicated tests; more like the IRS code. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 4:00 am
As Justice Frankfurter explained in a concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2017, 4:38 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 4:00 pm
SAS Institute v. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 9:52 am
Institutional relevance means acting as a team-player and signing up to the institutional consensus. [read post]
23 Feb 2021, 7:05 am
Totten v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1220 (2021); see, Bernard Bell, A Little Blue Birdie Told Me: Knight First Amendment Institute v. [read post]
1 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
How is this relevant for California v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 1:32 pm
For instance, they describe a a short but telling November 2017 exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Scott Gant (counsel for the Department of the Interior) in the case of Patchak v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 8:31 am
” So concludes the game-changing statutory interpretation opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in King v. [read post]
