Search for: "Joshua Matz"
Results 1 - 20 of 78
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Nov 2017, 4:35 pm by Wolfgang Demino
REPUBLICAN MULVANEY MONKEY-WRENCH GAMBIT MOVES TO DC COURT Below is the text of the complaint and request for instanter restraining order (TRO) filed by one of the  dueling directors against the other [conversion from pdf]Original in pdf may be view here  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEANDRA ENGLISH, Deputy Director and Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 4:35 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Joshua Matz describes an amicus brief he filed in the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 9:54 pm
"Religious Freedom and the Masterpiece Case": Joshua Matz has this post at the "Take Care" blog. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 4:15 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Joshua Matz, introducing excerpts from an amicus brief filed in the entry-ban cases on behalf of a group of constitutional law scholars, argues that “the President’s public statements—before and after inauguration—about why he issued his executive order” constitute “admissions of anti-Muslim animus. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 5:01 am by Joe Hodnicki
Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz provide an authoritative guide to impeachment’s past and a bold argument about its proper role today. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 4:47 am by Edith Roberts
 At Take Care, Joshua Matz argues that “[i]t’s hardly obvious that DOJ should rush to the Supreme Court this time around,” and observes that “at every turn, even when doing so requires reading precedent or judicial orders with a miserly eye, this administration seems obsessed with excluding as many people as possible for as long as possible. [read post]
20 Jul 2017, 4:30 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Joshua Matz argues that “[t]he Supreme Court is now a co-owner and co-author of the travel ban,” and that “with that position comes major institutional risk to the Supreme Court’s public legitimacy. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 3:32 pm
"The Supreme Court's Travel Ban": Joshua Matz has this post at the "Take Care" blog. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 2:57 pm by David Lat
[Democracy in America / The Economist] * Nor does Joshua Matz: "The Supreme Court is now a co-owner and co-author of the travel ban. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 11:08 am
"Fifth Circuit Ruling Threatens LGBT Rights & Religious Freedom": Joshua Matz has this post at the "Take Care" blog. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 5:22 am
If so, that would mean that Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented in Obergefell, has accepted the ruling as settled law.However, as Joshua Matz explains on Take Care, we do not know whether the per curiam garnered five or six votes, because a justice can dissent from a summary action without publicly registering a dissent. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
Joshua Matz comments on Pavan at Take Care. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
Whether this claim can stand up to historical scrutiny remains doubtful, in light of analyses by John Mikhail (here and here), and by Joshua Matz and Larry Tribe. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 7:25 am by Rick Hasen
Joshua Matz in The Guardian: The legal response to Trump’s emoluments clause violations has taken shape more slowly. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 8:00 am by Dan Epps
Joshua Matz raised the problem of potential mootness last week; Marty Lederman has a detailed post on the issue arguing that the Court should deny the Government's cert petition because the ban expires imminently; Mark Tushnet offered some thoughts along somewhat similar lines. [read post]
31 May 2017, 4:59 am by Edith Roberts
At Take Care, Joshua Matz provides an in-depth analysis of the route by which cases challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily barring entry into the United States of foreign nationals from six majority-Muslim countries may reach the Supreme Court, concluding that “that it matters a great deal how and when the Supreme Court ultimately reviews the Muslim Ban. [read post]
30 May 2017, 3:43 pm by David Lat
[Buying Legal Guide] * Joshua Matz explains how and when the Supreme Court might review the Trump travel ban (aka "Muslim ban"). [read post]
30 May 2017, 7:50 am
"It Matters How and When SCOTUS Reviews the Muslim Ban": Joshua Matz has this post at the "Take Care" blog. [read post]
25 May 2017, 1:30 pm by Corey Brettschneider
He contended that, under Mandel and subsequent cases interpreting it, all the government need show in the immigration context is a “rational basis” for its actions, rather than the more demanding showing required under traditional Establishment Clause doctrine.But this analysis invites, rather than disavows, application of the animus doctrine that the Supreme Court developed in cases like Lukumi—and that I argued in an earlier essay in Politico and… [read post]