Search for: "McConnell v State" Results 441 - 460 of 781
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2018, 11:38 am by Erwin Chemerinsky
The court overruled a precedent from seven years earlier, McConnell v. [read post]
17 Dec 2020, 11:10 pm by Josh Blackman
The Court could have easily GVR'd the 6th Circuit's panel, and stated that it did not faithfully apply Diocese. [read post]
25 Sep 2020, 1:42 pm by Adam Feldman
Among the major opinions Ginsburg authored during her career are majority opinions in United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2022, 1:09 pm by Bob Bauer, Jack Goldsmith
  (Our analysis builds on the excellent work in the last few days by (among others) Matthew Seligman (see here, here, here, and here); Protect Democracy; Andy Craig; Derek Muller; Ned Foley, Michael McConnell, Derek Muller, Brad Smith, and Rick Pildes; and Henry Olsen. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 6:32 am by Erin Miller
The Volokh Conspiracy again covers the Court's denial of cert. in Noriega v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 9:35 am by Eugene Volokh
Ct. at 898 (invalidating the federal ban on corporate and union spending for political speech because the government may not “repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process”); McConnell v. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 8:43 am
The government lawyer’s argument relied  heavily upon the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in McConnell v . [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 1:13 pm by Victoria Clark
Robert Chesney and Steve Vladeck reviewed war powers, Doe v. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
The Supreme Court and the New Challenge to the ACA As Professor Michael Dorf explained in his Verdict column yesterday, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to the ACA, King v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 12:08 pm
However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 10:36 am by Alan S. Kaplinsky
McConnell that it will be business as usual at the Bureau and states that she will continue “to defend the Bureau’s actions,” she also indicates that she has “directed the Bureau’s attorneys to refrain from defending the for-cause removal provision in the lower courts. [read post]