Search for: "Ganesh Sitaraman, Ingrid Wuerth" Results 1 - 10 of 10
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2015, 2:17 am by Human Rights at Home Blog
The May 2015 issue of the law review includes an article by Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth titled The Normalization of Foreign... [read post]
12 May 2015, 6:58 am
Ganesh Sitaraman (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) & Ingrid Wuerth (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) have published The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 128, no. 7, p. 1897, May 2015). [read post]
14 Oct 2017, 5:05 am by Garrett Hinck
Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth wrote that lower courts should not concede to the government in travel ban litigation because of “national security exceptionalism" arguments. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 1:24 pm by Elena Chachko
Without making any direct comparisons, this approach is reminiscent of what Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth recently described as a process of “normalization” of U.S. foreign relations law, whereby the U.S. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 10:22 am by Garrett Hinck
Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth argued that “national security deference” should not influence federal courts to concede to the government in litigation over the travel ban. [read post]
22 Oct 2017, 1:58 pm by Ilya Somin
Sitaraman and Wuerth are absolutely right about national security exceptionalism. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 6:16 am by Curtis Bradley
Although somewhat less clear, the decision also tends to undercut the claim (made most notably by Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth in a recent article in the Harvard Law Review) that the Supreme Court is “normalizing” foreign relations law – that is, treating it the same way that it treats ordinary issues of domestic law. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 4:27 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Ingrid Brunk Wuerth and Ganesh Sitaraman argue that “[w]hile categorizing ‘national security’ issues as warranting exceptional deference might be rhetorically powerful and instinctively comforting, it is not logically defensible – and it poses dangerous consequences for our constitutional system. [read post]