Search for: "State v. Kavanaugh" Results 161 - 180 of 2,699
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2018, 8:53 am by Randy Barnett
Kavanaugh is here referring favorably to the 1925 Due Process case of Pierce v. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 7:11 pm
  United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT____________No. 07-5127 September Term 200806cv00217Filed On: November 17, 2008 Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead andWatts, LLP,Appellants v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 4:15 am by Eileen McDermott
Justices Breyer, Kavanaugh, Ginsburg and Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts were among the most active questioners of Malcolm Stewart, representing the government of the United States, and Morgan Chu of Irell & Manella, representing NantKwest, during yesterday’s oral argument in Peter v. [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 9:28 am by CrimProf BlogEditor
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 3:59 pm by Michael C. Dorf
After rage-tweeting throughout the oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 5:30 am by Josh Blackman
Next, Justice Kavanaugh turns to the position stated by Justice Thomas, and now Justice Gorsuch. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 8:44 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Thus there is nothing in Kavanaugh's record to suggest would be at all sympathetic to the states' outlandish claims in Texas v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 3:55 am by Edith Roberts
Stitt and United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 6:28 pm by Howard Bashman
And at Mother Jones, Sophie Murguia reports that “Kavanaugh’s Nomination Renews Fight Over Outdated State Abortion Bans; Nine states still have laws on the books that ban abortion. [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 2:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp v Halleck, involves whether private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability under the First Amendment. [read post]
7 Oct 2018, 9:00 am by Andrew Hamm
United States and United States v. [read post]