Search for: "U.S. v. Gill"
Results 61 - 80
of 334
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2018, 12:53 pm
Perry, same-sex marriage, and Gill v. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 6:00 am
The Court held that the plaintiffs in Gill v Whitford, 585 U. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 9:30 pm
Both these cases, Gill v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 6:56 am
Writing for The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog, Bernard Grofman parses last term’s partisan-gerrymandering decisions in Gill v. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 8:52 am
The plaintiffs, including in the recent fizzle of this term’s Gill v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:32 am
Valentin Vandendaele at Leiden Law Blog describes – and advocates – use of the efficiency gap to measure partisan gerrymandering, which the court declined to do this term in Gill v. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 10:19 am
Long divided over whether partisan gerrymandering raises any constitutional issue that federal courts should decide, the justices raised the expectations of the legal and political communities by agreeing to hear two appeals, Gill v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 4:18 am
Philip Randolph Institute], U.S. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 5:57 am
But if the court were to follow its strict approach to standing (see most recently Gill v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 3:31 am
The editorial board of The Washington Post weighs in on this week’s two partisan-gerrymandering cases, Gill v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 2:06 pm
Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Gill v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 3:43 pm
Commentators have treated the Court’s decision in Whitford v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 2:38 pm
In the U.S. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 2:05 pm
It is difficult to see the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gill v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 10:43 am
The Supreme Court declined the opportunity offered by Gill v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 8:14 am
Gill, Benisek or Rucho v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 4:00 am
In Gill v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 12:26 pm
Last summer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Gill v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 12:19 pm
The chief justice announces that “I have the opinion in Number 16-1161, Gill v. [read post]
