Search for: "American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County" Results 1 - 15 of 15
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Mar 2016, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 9:26 am by Eugene Volokh
Under this policy, King County excluded the American Freedom Defense Initiative's "Faces of Global Terrorism" ad: The King County Metro Transit General Manager explained that, in Metro's view, [T]he "Faces of Global Terrorism" motif suggested that all persons of color who practiced the Muslim religion were, in fact, the "faces of global terrorism. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 3:08 am by Scott Bomboy
” The United States Supreme Court passed on a case about a similar issue back in 2016, American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 11:32 am by Lyle Denniston
 The Court gave no reason for denying the appeal; the two Justices dissented in a separate opinion in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm by John Elwood
This week’s other new (apparent) relist, American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 11:39 pm by David Kopel
Religion, Arms, and ResistanceJonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers: With Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I and on the Anniversary of his DeathSimeon Howard, A Sermon Preached to the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company in BostonC. [read post]
25 Apr 2009, 3:21 am
  Initially, it was to be in effect for five years. [read post]
4 Sep 2024, 2:07 pm by David Kopel
City and County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 967 (C.A.9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), and "to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use," Ezell v. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 10:02 am by John Elwood
Turning to the losers, the Court denied cert. to two-time relist American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings, but expressed no view as to whether dismissal was warranted based on other defenses raised by the city. [read post]