Search for: "SMITH v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,281
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2024, 7:09 am
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Smith v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:31 pm
Smith is a mere employee of the Department of Justice, and he lacks the power to initiate prosecutions. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:01 am
Circuit’s application of the Fitzgerald test in Blassingame v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
562, Decision No. 14,311; Appeal of Smith, Jr., 34 id. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
562, Decision No. 14,311; Appeal of Smith, Jr., 34 id. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 11:39 am
Smith could move forward with a trial. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 4:12 pm
Justice Kavanaugh also said that Morrison v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 3:16 pm
Dreeben is wearing an ordinary business suit, and not the morning coat usually worn by male lawyers for the federal government, though later, in questioning, he will tell the justices, “I am speaking on behalf of the Justice Department. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 2:35 pm
(William Hennessy) Dreeben contended that, even if presidents have immunity for their official acts, in this case the federal government could still introduce evidence of Trump’s interactions with the Department of Justice. [read post]
History Shows the Supreme Court Knows How to Move Quickly, as it Should With the Trump Immunity Case
22 Apr 2024, 5:50 am
Trump has filed multiple motions designed to delay the trial until past the November election, after which, if he wins the election, he is expected to instruct the Justice Department to drop the case. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Speaking through Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Justices elaborated upon their less constricted version of the “authority or duty” test in a way that provides some guidance to government officials. [read post]
21 Apr 2024, 2:25 pm
[Defendant standing must exist at all stages of any litigation and must be raised by the justices of the Supreme Court even if the litigants themselves fail to raise it] On Thursday, April 25th the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
19 Apr 2024, 1:32 pm
This charge does not occur when a person creates documents as part of their ordinary business or employment, has the consent of the other person, or procures identity documents for a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 6:31 am
And in 1982, in Nixon v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 1:34 pm
(William Hennessy) Arguing on behalf of the Department of Justice, U.S. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 9:27 am
In Bounds v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:16 am
Nearly a decade ago, in Yates v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 4:30 am
While Justice Gorsuch situates the Court’s protection of website designer Lorie Smith against compelled speech—and orthodoxy—in the commercial marketplace as the latest in a series of courageous First Amendment decisions by the Court protecting individuals against an encroaching state, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent excoriates the majority for departing from the long history of the Court courageously defending citizenship-expanding… [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
One need look no further than last week’s sentencing of Samuel Bankman-Fried to see the impact of noncompliance.[12] In advance of the sentencing, the Department of Justice filed hundreds of victim statements with the court.[13] The victim statements reflect the incredibly broad cross-section of people who were harmed by the fraud that Bankman-Fried was convicted of: single parents, retirees, young people, grandparents. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 5:06 am
Smith v. [read post]
