Search for: "Peter Margulies" Results 101 - 120 of 374
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Oct 2018, 7:39 am by Immigration Prof
Professor Peter Margulies analyzes the Supreme Court oral arguments in Nielsen v. [read post]
30 Dec 2006, 9:05 pm
Professor Peter Margulies (Roger Williams) has an article online in the Business Law Journal of U-California-Davis. [read post]
7 May 2007, 1:58 pm
Peter Margulies (left), at Roger Williams, has an interesting and timely new article that is forthcoming in the Fordham Int'l L.J called "When to Push the Envelope. [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 8:47 am by Robert Chesney
Second, al-Bahlul is not charged with Peter’s new crime.   [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 8:47 am by Robert Chesney
  Second, al-Bahlul is not charged with Peter’s new crime. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 7:11 pm by Steve Vladeck
For the two people still following the exchange between me and Peter Margulies over the bottom-side briefing in the al Bahlul D.C. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 7:18 am by Immigration Prof
This term brought a number of very important immigration decisions to the Supreme Court. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 10:51 am by Steve Vladeck
” Readers may see in such a conclusion (and in our post, more generally) a fair amount of tension with Jack’s “longer view” of al Bahlul from yesterday, and with today’s analysis by Peter Margulies with respect to Congress’s power to “define” international law. [read post]
6 Apr 2013, 10:35 am by Alan Rozenshtein
Peter Margulies recently discussed the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Clapper v. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 5:41 am by Benjamin Wittes
Clapper, I am largely, though not completely, in agreement with Peter Margulies’s assessment of the matter. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 6:07 am by Benjamin Wittes
Peter’s third point is to my mind his strongest. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 12:07 pm by Steve Vladeck
Thanks to his “sur-reply”, I finally understand the premise of Peter Margulies’s argument—and his amicus brief—in al Bahlul with regard to why the en banc D.C. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 9:00 am by Raffaela Wakeman
Catch up on all the action this weekend: Steve’s critique of the brief, which was authored, among others, by law professor Peter MarguliesPeter’s response; Steve’s reply; Peter’s sur-reply; Steve’s last word; and Peter’s (further!) [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 5:35 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Another perspective on this case worth highlighting comes from Professor Peter Margulies. [read post]