Search for: "People v. Nations" Results 101 - 120 of 18,437
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2024, 8:39 am by centerforartlaw
Although Jewish individuals were not considered a nation, they were heavily affect [read post]
6 May 2024, 4:43 am by INFORRM
Data privacy and data protection The ICO has called for “urgent improvements” to address the denial of “basic dignity and privacy” for people living with HIV caused by repeated data breaches that disclose their HIV status. [read post]
5 May 2024, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
”“We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent. [read post]
5 May 2024, 4:13 am by SHG
The Supreme Court, in its recent Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
4 May 2024, 1:25 pm by David Bernstein
Even on school grounds, racist speech can be protected, such as Nazi meetings on school grounds, see National Socialist White People's Party v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
[Eagle-eyed readers might notice that the court cites Saunders v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:49 am by Eugene Volokh
For instance, some people argue that it's illegitimate to deny to Jews a right to have a nation of Israel, because it already does exist, but legitimate to deny the Palestinians a right to have a nation of Palestine, because it has not been officially recognized. [read post]
2 May 2024, 9:37 am by Jiahang Li | JURIST Staff, CN
The next day, former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez responded, stating that the reform is not conducive to job creation and foreign investment and will affect young people adversely. [read post]
§ 4872(d)(2), which currently includes the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. [read post]
1 May 2024, 8:35 am by Chris Sutton
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama delivered a decision in the case National Small Business United v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
”  The Court’s decision in Roe v. [read post]