Search for: "Hamilton v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 2,337
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm by Josh Blackman
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 9:01 am by Just Security
”  South Africa had argued that the imposition of such a requirement would follow the model the Court had used in the provisional measures phase of Ukraine v. [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 3:12 pm by Adam White
Hamilton wasn’t the only one to make this point. [read post]
14 Jan 2024, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
"); Riley Gaines Assaulted by Trans Activists at San Francisco State University, Yahoo News (describing how prote [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:09 am by Norman L. Eisen
Supreme Court, Colorado Republican State Central Committee v. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm by Noah Brown
Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 9:02 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
United States and then again in the 1990 decision, Employment Div. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
There is no originalism in the majority opinion except for passing references to quite general statements made by Hamilton and Madison. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 12:38 pm by Marci Hamilton
  She reasoned that banning males from a state nursing school was based on tired stereotypes, which set the stage for the later decision in United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 6:58 pm by Steven Calabresi
 Even Alexander Hamilton, himself, said in his brief for the United States in Hylton v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 11:26 am by Stephen E. Sachs
To use Hamilton's example, they decided not to fix in amber which goods the federal and state governments might tax, and instead to leave that up to future congresses and state legislatures to decide. [read post]
2 Dec 2023, 7:25 pm by Jim Lindgren
Second, Alexander Hamilton himself said in his brief for the United States in Hylton v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 8:41 am by Dennis Crouch
Ct. 1367, 1374 (2020), which stated in passing that “the § 315(b)-barred party can join a[n existing IPR] proceeding initiated by another petitioner. [read post]