Search for: "Amis v. Smith" Results 21 - 40 of 256
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2021, 11:58 am by George Quillin and Jeanne Gills
With regard to the constitutional violation, Roberts (joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) noted that the starting point for each party’s analysis was Edmond v. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 1:37 pm by Andrea Picciotti-Bayer
” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, similarly left open the possibility of reconsidering Smith in the future. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 1:20 pm by Jim Oleske
Smith, a landmark 1990 decision holding that the free exercise clause does not provide a right to religious exemptions from neutral and generally applicable laws, or (2) sharply limit the impact of Smith by turning a caveat the Smith majority used to distinguish a prior case — the “mechanism for individualized exemptions” reading of Sherbert v. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 10:04 am by Amy Howe
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, in an opinion that was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 7:13 am by Jim Oleske
Supporters argued that the theory had roots in Smith itself (specifically its explanation of the earlier Sherbert v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 6:49 am by Marcia Coyle
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the agency’s lawyer a number of questions about Smith and that lawyer said the agency could win even if Smith were applied. [read post]
7 Jan 2021, 11:26 am by Emanuela Tala
During oral argument, newly-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that CSS urged in its briefing that Smith should be overruled. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 8:43 am by Anna Salvatore, Tia Sewell
Amy Robinson and Jim Waldo explained the inherent limitations of contact-tracing apps. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
And consider the great length and complexity of the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning and decision in, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. [read post]