Search for: "U.S. v. STATE OF TEXAS." Results 141 - 160 of 8,430
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2024, 1:14 pm by Amy Howe
A federal judge in Austin, Texas put that state’s law on hold before it could go into effect, but the U.S. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
As we know, however, Texas continued to refine its primary rules to exclude Black people, and although Nixon won another challenge to the Texas process in Nixon v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 5:51 pm by Daphne Keller
A claimant who merely “does business in this state” and accesses platforms from another state (or country, perhaps) can still sue platforms for not following Texas's rules. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 9:00 am by William Banks
  Texas Governor Greg Abbott reacted with a statement claiming that the Constitution grants states a right to defend themselves against “invasion,” and that Texas authority “supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
The most obvious class of examples, as I discussed on Monday and as I explain at greater length in the article, consists of so-called "percentage" plans by which various states guarantee admission to a state university to students graduating in a specified top percentage of their respective high school classes.For example, in his dissent in Fisher v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 1:44 pm by Kalvis Golde
Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s use of the First Amendment analysis of City of Houston, Texas v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 3:44 pm by Michael Lowe
According to the USSC: 9% had little or no prior criminal history (Criminal History Category I); 7% were CHC II; 8% were CHC III; 2% were CHC IV; 5% were CHC V; 9% were CHC VI. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 6:07 am by Kevin LaCroix
  It is like blaming the State of Texas for the migrant crisis when the federal government refuses to the close the border or Congress fails to solve the problem. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 5:00 am by Ben Sperry
Thus, Texas and Florida’s state laws not only violate the First Amendment, but also reduce social-media platforms’ value to users by requiring them to carry “lawful but awful” speech. [read post]