Search for: "Donald Thomas v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 806
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2020, 8:10 am
Descargue Trump v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 9:05 pm
The argument took place before a panel consisting of Judges David Sentelle, Janice Brown, and Thomas Griffith. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 6:56 am
” He also quoted in part a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas in Trump v. [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 9:30 pm
Donald A. [read post]
25 Oct 2015, 2:40 am
The plaintiffs in the case (Swartz v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
In one of my previous posts, I explained why it's unlikely that a majority of the Justices will hold that the Fourteenth Amendment bars Donald Trump from holding federal office. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 10:46 am
In Thornton, Thomas wrote, "In particular, the detail with which the majority recites the historical evidence set forth in Powell v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm
v. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 5:23 am
Ct. at 2330 (Thomas, J., concurring) (citations omitted). [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 5:57 am
In FDA v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 10:16 am
mod=googlenews_wsj, on United States v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 12:26 pm
In United States v. [read post]
28 Nov 2020, 10:53 am
This article is the final entry in a symposium previewing Trump v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 4:00 am
The majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch, which relied on both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the first amendment, has no originalist analysis and neither do Justice Thomas's or Justice Alito's short concurring opinions.In New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:01 pm
Presidential candidate Donald Trump claims he has the answer. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 4:00 am
Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Gamble v. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 8:54 am
In Duffy v. [read post]
1 Oct 2017, 4:15 pm
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, was the plaintiff in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm
” To read, “Kappos v. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 3:39 pm
” (To support the nationwide injunction, Washington argued that immigration law had to be uniform; ironically, the state had opposed this exact argument in United States v. [read post]
