Search for: "MUELLER v. STATE" Results 41 - 60 of 795
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2018, 12:23 pm by Quinta Jurecic
Ben Sasse spoke for a number of the bill’s critics when he voiced concern that this provision would be unconstitutional as a matter of separation of powers: “Many of us think we are bound” by Justice Antonin Scalia’s lone dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
2 Jun 2019, 9:01 pm by Evan Caminker
Mueller owns this judgment call.Indeed, Attorney General William Barr, to whom Mueller ultimately reported, subsequently announced that he disagreed with Mueller’s view. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 11:10 am
On May 18th, 2009 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Ashcroft v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 6:12 am by Susan Brenner
  The Court of Appeals then found that Litzinger’s affidavit stated that the `recovery of [the Mueller] images [would] establish that Robert John Mueller is responsible for producing o [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 9:44 am by fvanloon
Department of Justice for text message records of former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page believed to be in the possession of the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and for other special counsel communications with the FBI relating to Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 6:00 pm by Josh Blackman
Under Younger abstention, a federal civil rights action will usually be put on hold while the criminal matter is ongoing in state court. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 10:28 am by Peter Vasilescu
The order comes in a December 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch after the DOJ failed to respond to and August 17, 2017, request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2017, 5:54 pm by Bill Otis
 See Justice Scalia's lone dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 4:00 am by Steve Vladeck
Last Monday, I wrote a lengthy post about why Congress should pass the pending, bipartisan bills to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired without good cause—and why the proffered constitutional objections to that legislation are based upon a combination of unsubstantiated (and contestable) assumptions about the current Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn Morrison v. [read post]