Search for: "Pruitt v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 154
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2018, 9:16 am
Pruitt, a case brought to challenge the decision by the U.S. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 5:25 am
Hodges, Lawrence v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court ruling in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 8:11 am
The State of New York and the State of Connecticut brought suit against Scott Pruitt, as Administrator of the EPA, as well as the agency itself seeking an order to set a deadline by which the EPA would need to fulfill its mandatory duties under the Clean Air Act to set Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) when states fail to satisfy their obligations under the Good Neighbor Provision of the Clean Air Act. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 8:23 am
The second complaint was filed by the States of New York, California, and Maryland, New York v. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 5:31 am
Campbell and James V. [read post]
11 May 2018, 1:06 pm
See McCleskey v. [read post]
2 May 2018, 2:59 pm
Pruitt & Rebecca H. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 4:08 pm
Campbell and James V. [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 9:30 am
Pruitt & Rebecca H. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 9:30 pm
Using the case Bollea v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court case, Lucia v. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 2:35 pm
By James V. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 8:00 pm
This case is State of Georgia, et al., v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 1:49 pm
That was the subject of last week’s decision in A Community Voice v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 2:59 am
” [Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, and Meggan DeWitt, Cato on Knick v. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 6:13 pm
A debate over the legacy of Lochner v. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 1:45 pm
Pruitt, Case No. 17-71636 (9th Cir. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 8:35 am
Wyo. filed Nov. 15, 2016), and State of Wyoming et al. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 9:30 pm
Even when no federal law exists to conflict with state or local regulation, subnational rules can be unlawful if their burden on interstate commerce is “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits”—a test the Supreme Court announced in Pike v. [read post]
