Search for: "United States v. Flores"
Results 181 - 200
of 483
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2014, 9:06 am
Absent the violation of some external norm, as in a case like United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 12:15 pm
Flores, was based not on separation-of-powers issues — the core challenge of this new amicus brief — but upon limits the Court found to Congress’s authority to pass laws regulating the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 5:01 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 7:30 am
James Gray Pope, Rutgers Law School, Newark, has posted Snubbed Landmark: How United States v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 12:18 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 3:49 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 7:25 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 6:12 am
United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010)). [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
Flores. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 3:50 am
Gaona–Gomez admitted he was a Mexican national and was in the United States “without the proper immigration documents. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 6:00 am
United States, 342 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir.2003). [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 9:00 pm
In United States v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 1:49 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 May 2013, 9:01 pm
Although RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments in the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:01 pm
Use of the drug took place in a military context: everyone in the decedent’s unit took an antimalarial drug before shipping to Afghanistan. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
Flores. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 5:28 am
Burmese officials arrested him in January 2011 and returned him to United States custody. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 2:55 pm
Yet, out of the 89,476 jurisdictions in the United States, only about 12,000 (13.4%) are “covered” jurisdictions. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
And when conflict is unavoidable, we should not come to do battle with the United States Congress armed only with a test (congruence and proportionality) that has no demonstrable basis in the text of the Constitution and cannot objectively be shown to have been met or failed. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 1:18 pm
United States v. [read post]
