Search for: "Romer v. District of Columbia" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Sep 2009, 2:14 pm
The problem here is that the Supreme Court's rather opaque opinion in Romer v. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 11:54 pm
Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.1999), the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits apply a reasonableness test informed by the totality of the circumstances, see United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 12:42 pm by JB
After the Bush Administration took the official position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms in self defense (around 2001), this provided political cover for the Justices to reach the same conclusion in 2008 in District of Columbia v. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 11:17 am by Lisa A. Mazzie
(An interesting side note: Justice Kennedy, a 1988 Reagan nominee, has authored all four of the major SCOTUS cases on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights: Romer v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
  While at one point, same-sex marriage was legal in only a single state (Massachusetts) and expressly prohibited in forty-four, it is now expressly permitted in thirteen (including California, by virtue of the dismissal of the appeal on Prop 8 in Perry) and in the District of Columbia. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 4:43 am
Hardwick, which had held that same-sex intimacy is not a fundamental right, but Lawrence does not clearly state that it is a fundamental right; and District of Columbia v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 5:23 am by Aaron Tang
Our first topic of the week is Florence v. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 9:00 pm by Kyle Hulehan
Notably, Romer and Romer’s study was completed with U.S. federal income tax data, not state level data. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 9:02 am
In twenty-two states as well as the District of Columbia and many municipalities, discrimination against gay people is prohibited. [read post]
31 May 2012, 8:33 am by Lyle Denniston
   In a unanimous three-judge panel ruling in Massachusetts v. [read post]