Search for: "Nixon v. State" Results 301 - 320 of 1,062
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Sep 2020, 10:38 am
  After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. [read post]
9 Aug 2020, 9:03 pm by Cary Coglianese
Last year, President Trump responded angrily to the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 2:45 am by NCC Staff
On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 9:00 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
In 1970, (Republican) President Nixon signed Title X into law, which led to the creation of federally funded family-planning clinics across the country. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 2:30 pm by Guest Blogger
Nixon order that President Nixon turn over his incriminating tape recordings to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. [read post]
11 Jul 2020, 1:30 pm by John Malcolm
Nixon (1974) (which involved a third-party trial subpoena for a federal criminal case not targeting the president) and Clinton v. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 2:08 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; see also Metlife, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 7:24 am by Peter Shane
Nixon in determining the enforceability of the subpoena. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 3:49 pm by Stephen Wermiel
On July 24, the justices ruled 8-0 in United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Although neither of President Trump’s appointees joined it, one of them—Justice Neil Gorsuch—wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. [read post]
19 May 2020, 6:15 pm by Sandy Levinson
 In any event this would require recognizing that, say, the oath taken by Herbert Hoover was significantly different from the oath taken by Harry Truman or, more to the point, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, given the repudiation of the pre-New Deal understanding of the Commerce Clause in favor of the post-Darby, Wickard v. [read post]
10 May 2020, 9:01 pm by Rodger Citron
”The appeals court described the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]