Search for: "T. Epp"
Results 61 - 80
of 454
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2020, 10:40 am
“I wouldn’t put it past Republicans to say they won’t name someone this year to avoid criticism during the election—and then to ram someone through in the lame duck period [mid-November to mid-January] after voters can’t do anything about it,” Epps said. [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 2:40 pm
Why isn't my information listed in the census? [read post]
21 Aug 2020, 12:41 pm
Shouldn’t Get to Decide If a Navajo Man Dies By Matthew L.M. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 8:40 am
Wouldn't it be great if there were a dozen or more such book seminars around the country? [read post]
14 Aug 2020, 8:34 am
Reform the Court, but Don’t Pack It By Ryan D. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 9:55 am
"People don't make jokes in the Court of Appeal. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 12:52 pm
DACA Isn’t What Made Me an American By Jin K. [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 7:34 am
The Obscure Supreme Court Decision the Trump Administration Could Use to Gut the First Amendment By Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law Garrett Epps discusses a footnote to an obscure Supreme Court case in Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order about social media companies and says that it could be nefariously used to greatly enlarge governmental control over speech. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 3:58 am
For The Washington Post, Michelle Ye Hee Lee reports that “[t]he Texas Democratic Party on Tuesday asked the U.S. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 12:52 pm
Trump’s Grotesque Violation of the First Amendment By Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law Garrett Epps writes that the violent removal of peaceful protestors at Lafayette Square was a grave violation of the First Amendment and that Americans cannot be stripped of their right to assemble just because some assembly has been violent. [read post]
15 May 2020, 1:14 pm
The Supreme Court Says Sorry, It Just Can’t Help With Political Corruption By Leah Litman, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School Leah Litman discusses the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Kelly v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:04 am
” At Vox, Ian Millhiser observes that “[t]hese cases do not present a particularly partisan conflict, and the judges appeared to divide along different lines. [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:46 am
” At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps asks Lyle Denniston, a storied Supreme Court reporter, why Denniston “despises” the Supreme Court’s new telephonic-argument format. [read post]
7 May 2020, 3:58 am
Supreme Court case involving a statutory immigration provision has the potential for implications far beyond the narrow issue in the case”; she argues that “[t]he Supreme Court’s most recent statutory interpretation case, Barton v. [read post]
4 May 2020, 3:58 am
At The New Yorker (via How Appealing), Jeannie Suk Gersen writes that “[t]his direction could be particularly appealing to the conservative majority, which may be loath to decide against the President but also doesn’t wish to endorse Trump’s disobedience of legal orders. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 4:09 am
” At The Atlantic (via How Appealing), Garrett Epps hopes the court will summarily reverse a “rogue court [that] has had four chances to apply a foundational First Amendment precedent, and has bobbled it each time[:] That mistake, in a case called Mckesson v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 3:55 am
”At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps maintains that “[t]wo months is plenty of time for even those as busy as the justices to devise a way to hold oral arguments remotely—to show the nation that the courts remain stalwart in the face of terror” – “[a]nd if they can’t do their job, then by God, they should at least have the grace to explain to us why not. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 12:58 pm
Trump Shouldn’t Be Able to Fire Fauci for Contradicting Him By Peter M. [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 4:38 pm
The American Presidency Wasn’t Built for Men This Old By Joe Sam Robinson Jr., President, Georgia Neurological Institute and Buckner F. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 4:03 am
” John Kruzel reports at The Hill that “[t]he request comes after a lower court deemed the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy illegal and ordered a suspension that was scheduled to take effect March 12” in California and Arizona. [read post]
