Search for: "Printz v. U.s.*"
Results 1 - 20
of 28
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
Printz v. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 8:57 am
§ 1373, absent specific spending clause obligations, threatens to run afoul of federalism principles as laid out in the Supreme Court case Printz v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 2:30 pm
Indeed, it merits the description 'empty formalistic reasoning of the highest order.'" Printz [v. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 10:39 am
It cannot do that by simply ordering them to do so (as in the Supreme Court case of Printz v. [read post]
31 May 2018, 9:01 pm
In the seminal McCulloch v. [read post]
14 May 2018, 11:40 am
Doing so, New Jersey contends, is a violation of the anticommandeering principle of Printz v. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 12:45 pm
The Supreme Court announced that principle in 1997, in Printz v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 11:40 am
As Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 9:01 pm
In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations.Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 8:02 pm
As… Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 2:32 pm
United States and Printz v. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 11:31 am
Citing Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 1997 Printz v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 11:52 am
United States and Printz v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 7:48 am
Instead, Hirsch cited at length a decision written by the late Antonin Scalia in Printz v. [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 9:01 pm
” In challenging this federal directive, San Francisco relies on principles of federalism as expounded in Printz v. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 7:00 am
As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); Printz v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 6:36 am
(Will Baude) Yesterday I posted the amicus brief that I and a group of constitutional law scholars filed in the Court’s recess appointments case, Noel Canning. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 9:00 am
See, e.g., Printz v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 7:07 am
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, my colleague Randy Barnett, who's representing the private plaintiffs in the ACA case, has written a post focusing upon Justice Kennedy's expressed concern that in order for the Court to uphold section 5000A of the ACA, it might have to issue what Randy calls an "unbounded" opinion, one that would permit Congress to require the purchase of virtually any product--an outcome that Justice Kennedy fears would “change the relationship of the… [read post]
