Search for: "State v. Brennan" Results 121 - 140 of 1,426
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Oct 2022, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
For the fairly obvious reason that in each case, the first certiorari question is whether the Court should overrule Grutter v. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 7:33 am by Rick Hasen
Among the more interesting briefs being filed include: ACLU, Evan Bernick, Bipartisan Election officials, Bipartisan election administrators, the Brennan Center, CAC, CLC et al, Democracy and Race scholars, Atiba Ellis, Former… Continue reading [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 6:58 am by INFORRM
In an earlier post on this blog, I considered the potential impact on the First Amendment of Thomas J’s originalist reasoning in the Second Amendment case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, and found some distinctly chilly zephyrs. [read post]
25 Oct 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Brennan or Earl Warren, but, rather, John Marshall Harlan, who on notable occasions, including the reapportionment cases, dissented from quintessential “Warren Court” decisions. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 6:03 am by Scott Bomboy
“Plaintiffs rely heavily on the plurality opinion of Justice [William] Brennan in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 4:00 am by Evan Dicharry
” So does the Supreme Court of the United States have a legitimacy problem? [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 6:53 pm by Mark Walsh
Gerstein tells me he received a thank-you letter from Brennan. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Most American judges, since they serve at the state level, are, as in my home state of Texas, elected, which horrifies many and serves, for others, only to make the politicized nature of appointment to the courts absolutely transparent. [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 7:14 am by JURIST Staff
And of course, all three Trump-appointed justices joined the Court’s other conservatives to overturn Roe v. [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
That three-Justice opinion (written by Justice Brennan and joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens) stressed that the tax exemption was not a permissible accommodation of religion, because it "burdens nonbeneficiaries markedly"[14] "by increasing their tax bills by whatever amount is needed to offset the benefit bestowed on subscribers to religious publications. [read post]