Search for: "Justice v. Kansas, State of" Results 781 - 800 of 1,034
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Mar 2019, 7:24 am by Katherine Kelley
I also ran searches of all the above terms in the Department of Justice website, the FBI website, and in Google itself. [read post]
14 May 2012, 7:46 am by Steve Hall
” The problem with Ford is that the justices’ holding didn’t match their rhetoric. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 7:52 am by John Elwood
This time around, the Justices are being way more pokerfaced about their preferred vehicle. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 8:32 am by John Elwood
Remember United States v. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 9:49 am by Scott Bomboy
On July 2, 2024, John Broomes, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, issued an injunction against the final Title IX rule. [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 5:44 am by Marci A. Hamilton
Massachusetts, which held that states have the power to make vaccination compulsory in the public interest and the 1944 decision in Prince v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 7:59 am by Jennifer Weil
Todd Tiahrt of Kansas opposing the bill: Pay discrimination is not a partisan issue. [read post]
16 Aug 2024, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
All seven state ballot measures considered following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. [read post]
21 Nov 2018, 9:56 am by John Elwood
State Bar of California and Lathrop v. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 12:32 pm by John Elwood
It’s a little surprising the court let stand a federal court decision invalidating a state statute on constitutional grounds, but animal-rights groups defending that decision argued persuasively that state statutes are in a state of flux and it would be premature for the justices to take up the case now. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 11:52 am by Andrew Hamm
United States (Fourth Amendment, electronic privacy), and City of Hays, Kansas v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 11:13 pm
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)). [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 4:00 am by Will Baude
Justice Thomas of course questioned this power in Gonzales v. [read post]