Search for: "ROBERTS v. DOJ " Results 1 - 20 of 526
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2008, 10:32 pm
Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts has advanced a reading of section 5 that is at odds with decades of practice in interpreting the law, DOJ regulations, and congressional acquiescence in... [read post]
4 May 2022, 6:48 am by Howard Bashman
Roberts investigation could make the Supreme Court very uncomfortable; Separation of powers could make it hard for DOJ or FBI to investigate Supreme Court breach”: Kyle Cheney of Politico has this report. [read post]
6 Jun 2022, 9:26 pm by lennyesq
Robert Hubbell ***    The DOJ filed an amended (“superseding”) indictment against the leaders of the Proud Boys alleging “seditious conspiracy. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 1:57 pm by Allan Blutstein
FBI, and that DOJ met its burden with respect to its Exemption 5 withholdings related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 presidential election.The New York Times v. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 6:04 am by Allan Blutstein
DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report because, in court’s view, Attorney General Barr——and by extension DOJ—lacked credibility about this matter. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 8:39 am by Wanda
He charges $300 per hour and, during his November 2008 testimony in U.S. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 2:00 pm by Robert Liles
Department of Justice (DOJ) addressing the fact that in the past, some DOJ guidance documents had not gone through the rulemaking process but had still been issued and used to bind private parties. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 7:56 am by The Federalist Society
The defendants included high-level officials in the Department of Justice (DOJ) such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar, as well various detention officials. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 8:39 am by Wanda
[All of the facts in this post come from the 11th Circuit opinion in United States v. [read post]