Search for: "United States v. California" Results 101 - 120 of 12,570
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2025, 8:09 pm by Jim Robinson
Cal. 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California addressed a significant environmental health dispute concerning the fluoridation of public drinking water. [read post]
28 Mar 2025, 7:00 am by Edgar Chen
It was no coincidence that President Donald Trump announced on the campaign trail that he would seek to end birthright citizenship via executive order on the heels of the 125th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2025, 1:03 pm by Dr. Adam Feldman
United States (DDC March 18, 2025) Judge Ana Reyes (D. [read post]
26 Mar 2025, 6:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
” Facts of the Case Under CWA, the EPA and authorized state agencies issue permits that impose requirements on entities that want to discharge “pollutants” into the waters of the United States. [read post]
24 Mar 2025, 10:25 am by Guest Author
But it would not obviously mean, for example, that the United States could not sue Cause Based Commerce to collect its fair share of the USF support costs. [read post]
24 Mar 2025, 7:23 am by Alex Phipps
The court then considered whether removing defendant from the courtroom was error, looking to United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2025, 12:15 am
Under federal law, cannabis is illegal in every state and territory of the United States. [read post]
22 Mar 2025, 3:56 pm by jonathanturley
In a decision that could well find itself before the Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 1:06 pm by NARF
Morse (Regulatory Jurisdiction; Amended Complaint; Futility) United States, et al. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 8:40 am by Eric Goldman
The settlement says: subdivisions (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5) of California Business and Professions Code section 22677 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution facially and as applied to Plaintiff The state also must pay X $345,576 to cover its challenge costs. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 8:23 am
Padron signed and initialized a plea form, also known as a Tahl waiver, titled “Immigration Consequences" that expressly said: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, I must expect my plea of guilty or no contest will result in my deportation, exclusion from admission or reentry to the United States, and denial of naturalization and amnesty. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
 Because it found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge, and the balance of equities tipped in their favor,  the court enjoined the enforcement of these portions of the executive orders anywhere in the United States. [read post]