Search for: "Hill v. Texas Government" Results 121 - 140 of 389
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2015, 6:54 am by Amy Howe
In an op-ed for The Hill, Juan Williams weighs in on King v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 8:20 am by Kiran Bhat
Perkins, while Maurice Chammah of the Texas Tribune covers the grant in Trevino v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 2:11 am by Orin Kerr
Texas, there is ordinarily an "express invocation" requirement to the privilege. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 4:58 am by Amy Howe
Coverage related to the Court’s decision striking down two provisions of a Texas abortion law comes from Erik Eckholm of The New York Times; commentary comes from Jessie Hill at PrawfsBlawg, who considers the “future strategy of anti-abortion activists. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 5:15 am by Edith Roberts
United States and Shaw v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 4:25 am by Amy Howe
’”  At The Hill, Alissa Wellek notes that the Court’s decision in Mellouli v. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:23 am by Edith Roberts
At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler reports on how the Trump administration’s revocation of prior guidance from the federal government that had interpreted a 1975 regulation to require schools to “treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity” is likely to affect Gloucester County School Board v. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 11:40 am by Hadley Baker, Vishnu Kannan
Inman Award from the University of Texas’ Intelligence Studies Project. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 4:02 am by Edith Roberts
In an op-ed at The Hill, Daniel Ortner urges the court to review New York City’s ban on advertising in rideshare vehicles, in Vugo v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 10:47 am by Andrew Hamm
Texas, not the later marriage cases United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 7:30 am by Marissa Miller
Healthwatch, The Hill’s health care blog, summarizes the federal government’s arguments, made in response to the petitions filed by the group of states and the NFIB, about whether the Act’s individual mandate can be struck down without affecting other provisions of the law. [read post]