Search for: "Nicholas Bagley"
Results 121 - 140
of 169
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2014, 7:10 pm
As Nicholas Bagley notes: Scientists can demonstrate that the challenged forms of birth control almost never prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 4:11 am
In an homage to canons of interpretation, Michigan lawprof Nicholas Bagley made an impassioned plea in the New York Times for the Supreme Court to ignore the words of the Affordable Care Act. [read post]
25 Aug 2017, 1:55 pm
Nicholas Bagley is “flummoxed” by Bates’s decision in this regard, and I share his confusion. [read post]
14 May 2020, 7:15 pm
As when the case was before the district court and Fifth Circuit, I have joined with Professors Nicholas Bagley, Abbe Gluck, and co-blogger Ilya Somin to file an amicus brief explaining why, whatever else courts conclude, the individual mandate is severable from what's left of the ACA. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 8:09 am
Nicholas Bagley has more background on these cases here. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 3:50 am
At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Nicholas Bagley highlights an amicus brief he and Samuel Bray submitted yesterday in Trump v. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 1:15 pm
Three amicus briefs feature contributions from VC bloggers: An academic amicus brief of Nicholas Bagley, Abbe Gluck, Ilya Somin and yours truly, arguing that the individual mandate is completely severable from the rest of the ACA. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 6:47 am
” Nicholas Bagley weighs in on the standing issue at The Incidental Economist, expressing “serious doubts about the standing of” three of the four challengers. [read post]
2 Dec 2014, 3:14 am
” Nicholas Bagley weighs in with a post at The Incidental Economist, observing that to prevail the challengers in the case must “believe that the judges and commentators who read the statute differently than they do . . . are all behaving unreasonably. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 4:00 am
” At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley considers the decision and why the ACA “require[s] employers to cover birth control for women in the first place,” and at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog Steven Schwinn and Ruthann Robson discuss a possible response by Congress to the decision. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 6:18 am
At Balkinization, Marty Lederman and Neil Kinkopf focus on the Take Care Clause issue, while Nicholas Bagley discusses the Administrative Procedure Act issue. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 5:51 am
” Briefly: At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley offers “a modest proposal” to “fix” the Court’s recent decision in Gobeille v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 1:16 pm
” Nicholas Bagley said O’Connor’s ruling was “about as naked a piece of judicial activism as I have ever seen; I don’t even think it’s close. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 5:09 am
Lyle Denniston covered the grant for this blog; contributors to our “snap symposium” on the grant included Nicholas Bagley, Abbe Gluck, and Jonathan H. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 4:07 am
At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley weighs in on King v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:23 am
At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley discusses the prospect that the Court could stay its decision in King (and the possible effects of such a stay), while at the National Review Online’s Bench Memos Michael Cannon argues that “the Court will have to lower the bar quite a bit to find the ACA’s Exchange provisions coercive. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 9:03 pm
The work of scholars such as Nicholas Bagley, Daniel Birk, Julian Mortensen, Nicolas Parrillo, and Jed Shugerman, as well as that of their critics, have made me realize that originalist arguments for presidential appointments and removal power and nondelegation positions are not only debatable, but in some cases really shaky. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 4:13 am
” At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley agrees that “Jost and Engstrand are on exactly the right track: they’re building a statutory case, premised on the text of the ACA as a whole, in favor of the government’s interpretation. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 2:04 am
"The judgment represents a serious affront to Peruvian sovereignty and is precisely the type of ruling that a United States court should not make because it hamstrings the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its foreign-relations responsibilities," Nicholas Bagley, an attorney for Peru, argued in court papers. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 3:36 am
Commentary comes from Marty Lederman at Balkinization, Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker, Nicholas Bagley in The New York Times, Robert Schlesinger at U.S. [read post]
