Search for: "Richard Samp" Results 1 - 20 of 86
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jan 2023, 4:07 pm by Eugene Volokh
Congratulations to Richard Samp, Harriet Hageman, and Mark Chenoweth of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, who represent plaintiff. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 1:40 pm by Howard Bashman
“Ill-Considered Decision Revives Judicial Misconduct Complaint”: Richard Samp has this post at the blog of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 6:20 am by Howard Bashman
“Justice Gorsuch Embraces the Rule of Lenity — and Underscores Textualism’s Modest Goals”: Richard Samp has this post at the blog of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 6:58 am by James Romoser
(David Garrow, The Wall Street Journal) Justice Kagan and Stare Decisis (Richard Samp, New Civil Liberties Alliance) The post The morning read for Friday, July 30 appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 3:52 am by Edith Roberts
At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Richard Samp writes that although “[t]he Supreme Court took a step in the right direction [last] week when it held [in Comcast v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 3:01 am by Walter Olson
National Association of African American-Owned Media, argued before the Court Nov. 13, originally appeared to hinge on the Ninth Circuit’s adopting a looser standard for allegations of race discrimination in contracting than did other circuits; as it has evolved, however, it may be decided on questions of pleading [Washington Legal Foundation and more from WLF’s Richard Samp, ABA Journal; Dominic Patten and Mike Fleming Jr., Deadline on underlying dispute; Howard… [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:58 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Richard Samp argues that “Justice Kagan’s vitriolic dissent last Friday in Knick was far wide of the mark when it lambasted the Court’s decision to overrule the oft-criticized Williamson County Planning v. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 3:53 am by Edith Roberts
’” At The WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp writes that the argument “made clear that state and local governments are playing Whack-a-Mole with private property rights. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 4:24 am by Edith Roberts
At The WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp describes recent developments on remand in Expressions Hair Design v. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for Forbes, Richard Samp writes that in Nielsen v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 1:17 pm by Richard Samp
Richard Samp is chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in support of the employers in Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 4:16 am by Edith Roberts
” At The WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp posits that in China Agritech v. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 9:00 pm by Dan Flynn
She thinks DOJ’s civil attorneys will be under instructions that FDA guidance documents cannot be used to prove violations of affirmative civil enforcement actions…” In December, the Washington Legal Foundation’s chief counsel Richard Samp said FDA’s “embrace of informal rulemaking ” was imposing “significant and unwarranted regulatory burdens on affected businesses. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 4:02 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for Forbes, Richard Samp looks at the aftermath of last term’s decision in Expressions Hair Design v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 9:01 pm by Dan Flynn
“FDA’s turn away from notice-and-comment rulemaking has an obvious motive: Formal rulemaking can be quite cumbersome, and FDA would prefer where possible to avoid the time and expense involved,” says attorney Richard Samp. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 4:28 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed in Forbes, Richard Samp weighs in on Jennings v. [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 7:55 am by Andrew Hamm
At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Richard Samp discusses the foundation’s amicus brief in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 4:14 am by Edith Roberts
At The Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Richard Samp discusses Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]