Search for: "Thomas Daley"
Results 21 - 40
of 92
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2020, 3:54 am
Thomas Shannan and Joseph Grosser have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 3:53 am
” At The Federalist Society’s blog, Thomas Berg and others argue that in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 4:05 am
” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Daley at the Daily Caller. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 3:42 am
Thomas Shannan and David Relihan preview the case at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 4:32 pm
In today’s increasingly fraught public realm, Lord Thomas’s sombre warning takes on even greater and more urgent resonance. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 4:02 am
” Kevin Daley notes at The Daily Caller that “[t]he Supreme Court’s liberal minority forged winning alliances in unexpected rulings throughout the 2018-2019 term, suggesting the newly entrenched conservative majority is hardly a cohesive unit. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 3:27 am
” At American Thinker, Thomas Wheatley weighs in on The American Legion v. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:58 am
United States, in which Thomas “challenged the court’s reliance on stare decisis,” noting that “[t]he coming terms will see if others join [Thomas] in revisiting a number of precedents. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 3:58 am
” For The New York Times, Evan Thomas reviews “Confirmation Bias,” a new book about recent Supreme Court confirmations. [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 4:07 am
Thomas, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 3:51 am
” Kimberly Robinson reports at Bloomberg Law that, during “an interview with financier-philanthropist David Rubenstein” yesterday, “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas [didn’t] seem eager to retire anytime soon. [read post]
29 May 2019, 7:15 am
Jackson, the court held, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, that neither of two removal provisions in federal law permit a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove a class-action claim from state to federal court. [read post]
9 May 2019, 3:56 am
Briefly: At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports on Vice President Mike Pence’s announcement yesterday at a Federalist Society conference that “[t]he Trump administration is searching for an appropriate case in which to ask the Supreme Court to end nationwide injunctions,” noting that some members of the court have signaled “receptiveness to such a challenge”: “Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a short concurring opinion to the 2018 travel ban… [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 3:59 am
Sullivan, “Thomas’ solo complaint was still significant, because it marked the first time in decades that Sullivan was under the court’s microscope. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 4:10 am
” Kevin Daley reports at The Daily Caller that “Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from Thursday’s 7-2 decision[, and] Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a brief separate statement concurring with the majority. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 4:12 am
” Additional coverage comes from Domenico Montenaro and Nina Totenberg at NPR, David Savage at the Los Angeles Times, Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, and Michael Bobelian at Forbes. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 3:55 am
’” At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley looks at two scholarly analyses of Justice Clarence Thomas’ habitual silence on the bench, which the justice broke during an oral argument last week for the first time in three years. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 4:12 am
” Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that the “dramatic arguments … concluded with a rare question from Justice Clarence Thomas. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 3:56 am
” Additional coverage comes from Jessica Gresko at AP, Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, Adam Liptak at The New York Times, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, and Tim Zubizaretta at Jurist. [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 4:03 am
” At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley covers reactions to the opinion, in which Thomas “urg[ed] the high court to reconsider a landmark freedom of the press decision called New York Times v. [read post]
