Search for: "Alexander v. United States" Results 801 - 820 of 1,262
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jan 2019, 5:22 am by William Ford
Alan Rozenshtein flagged a forthcoming article he wrote for the Yale Law Journal Forum arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong to conclude that the government needed a warrant to collect large quantities of cell-phone location data in United States v. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 2:45 am by NCC Staff
On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 10:15 am
The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are denied to these plaintiffs by the government’s unconstitutional actions described here. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:32 am by Andrew Hamm
United States, in which the justices held 5-4 that the government ordinarily needs a warrant to access historical cell-site location information. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 1:01 am by Josh Blackman
As the Chief Justice recently said in response to threatening statements made by a United States Senator about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, such statements "are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
On 29 June 2017 the Culture Secretary Karen Bradley made a statement to the House of Commons stating that she was “minded” to refer the proposed takeover of Sky plc by 21st Century Fox Inc to the Competition and Markets Authority on plurality grounds. [read post]
24 May 2024, 6:51 pm by Christine Kexel Chabot
United States, litigants have also asked the Court to find presidential removal powers and immunities that lack an explicit basis in the Constitution’s text. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 2:52 pm by Ben Berwick, Rachel Homer
” Instead, the Framers drafted a Constitution that required the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” for the appointment of “Officers of the United States. [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
United States, which reawakened Commerce Clause review of federal legislation yet hardly ushered in a new era of robust judicial review; and District of Columbia v. [read post]