Search for: "State v. Country" Results 1 - 20 of 23,230
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2025, 6:55 pm
At least that may be the thinling of States that do not share the same perspectives of the State or international organs that seek to regulate in this way.That, at its heart, appears to be the stance of at least one U.S. [read post]
25 Apr 2025, 10:22 am by Matthew Guariglia
Making several leaps, the MOU states that DHS has identified “numerous” individuals who are unlawfully present and have final orders of removal, and that each of these individuals is “under criminal investigation” for violation of federal law—namely, “failure to depart” the country under 8 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Apr 2025, 9:05 pm by The Regulatory Review Staff
In oral argument in Talbott v. [read post]
23 Apr 2025, 7:45 am by Evan George
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum handed the country’s public lands over to a DOGE staffer, Nitish Pahwa reports for SLATE. [read post]
22 Apr 2025, 6:44 pm by JURIST Staff
The court supported its decision by a 2022 US Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2025, 7:54 am by Dennis Shlionsky
And state leadership is stepping up with the creation of The Target Zero Commission, a 13-member group consisting of state officials from the Department of Transportation (DOT), State Police, along with the Division of Highway Traffic Safety, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, regional transportation officials, and others who will work together to make New Jersey’s roads safer for drivers and pedestrians. [read post]
21 Apr 2025, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
In a country as diverse as the United States, those decisions also often expose students to ideas that may be in tension with their deeply held beliefs. [read post]
20 Apr 2025, 3:21 am by jonathanturley
On PBS’s “Washington Week,” Baker stated: “On the physical violence part, and that has also been seen on both sides too, of course. [read post]
“Appellants have not demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay,” the panel wrote, citing the US Supreme Court’s stay standard in Nken v. [read post]
19 Apr 2025, 2:46 am by Ram Eachambadi | JURIST Staff
Xinis stated that she imposed this requirement because the Trump administration failed to provide proper updates as previously ordered. [read post]
18 Apr 2025, 2:17 pm
Bonta 24-728Issues: (1) Whether a party alleging that California’s Proposition 12 — which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country — discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under Pike v. [read post]