Search for: "Marty Lederman"
Results 41 - 60
of 802
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2020, 12:13 pm
The ongoing legal battle over former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book is in large part a fight over classification. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 7:00 am
Adam Cox, Marty Lederman and Cristina Rodriguez provide a thorough primer on those issues here. [read post]
20 Jun 2020, 10:39 am
Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman assessed this government lawsuit. [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 3:01 pm
Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman offered questions for Judge Royce Lamberth to ask the government during a hearing considering a government motion in the case regarding John Bolton’s new memoir. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 1:32 pm
Jack Goldsmith & Marty Lederman at Just Security; it's a factually and legally complicated area, which I don't know enough about, but on which they are experts. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 1:15 pm
ICYMI: Yesterday on Lawfare Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman assessed the U.S. government’s civil suit against former National Security Adviser John Bolton. [read post]
29 May 2020, 9:52 pm
Marty Lederman (Georgetown) for the pointer; he also adds that California offered this justification for the distinction in its brief: In the view of state public-health officials, large public gatherings pose a heightened risk of spread because attendees are "stationary in close quarters for extended periods of time. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 6:40 pm
[Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.] [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 5:11 pm
Marty Lederman critiques the two rulings here. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman unpacks the opinion, concluding that “the Supreme Court just stayed a provision of a district court preliminary injunction that does not exist, and in so doing imposed a restraint on the franchise of Wisconsin voters that Wisconsin law itself doesn’t require. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 7:56 am
And on Twitter, law professor Marty Lederman offers this response to Blackman’s essay. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 4:11 am
” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman weighs in on two requests for expedited review of a lower court ruling that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, arguing that “the Court ought to grant the petitions (and thus the motions to expedite) because of the stratagem that two judges on the Fifth Circuit employed here and the foreseeable effects their manipulations will have. [read post]
21 Dec 2019, 8:43 am
” For instance, they might conclude, for the sorts of reasons Marty Lederman has discussedon this blog, that “impartiality” must be understood loosely, perhaps even aspirationally, in the inherently politicized impeachment context. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 3:44 am
” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman remarks on how the briefing in a landmark 1926 Supreme Court case involving “whether Congress can give the Senate a role in the removal of an inferior officer” shows “how very different Supreme Court practice is today than it was a century ago. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 3:21 am
At Balkinization, Marty Lederman addresses “the importance of the … cases[,] the weakness of Trump’s constitutional arguments … and … what the Court is likely to do with those two cases. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 5:37 am
“Understanding the two Mazars subpoena cases pending in the Supreme Court”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog. [read post]
10 Oct 2019, 4:17 am
” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman offers “some thoughts on three issues the Justices and defendants’ advocates raised. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 9:37 am
Analysis As Marty Lederman and Robert Litt have pointed out, it has been the longstanding view of the Executive branch that this and similar statutes must be read to give the President the final word on whether and how classified information will be provided to the congressional intelligence committees. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 10:14 am
And at the “Balkinization” blog, Marty Lederman has a lengthy post titled “Thoughts on the SG’s ‘Lesbian Comparator’ Argument in the Pending Title VII Sexual-Orientation Cases. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 4:06 am
” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman explains why the “common framing of the question [in the two sexual-orientation cases]—based on a hypothetical employer who believes that homosexuality as such is immoral and thus won’t employ gay men or lesbians—is not, in fact, the scenario raised by these cases or, indeed, by virtually any of the reported cases in which employees have alleged that they were fired because of their same-sex orientation. [read post]
