Search for: "United States v. Harris"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,530
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2025, 8:13 am
United States, the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision holding that Congress may limit the president’s authority to remove members of the FTC without good cause. [read post]
20 Mar 2025, 8:13 am
United States, the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision holding that Congress may limit the president’s authority to remove members of the FTC without good cause. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 6:30 am
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]
14 Mar 2025, 11:57 am
Harris applied for a partial stay in three cases: Trump v. [read post]
14 Mar 2025, 4:25 am
Perhaps the New York Times failed to recognize its Freudian slip, that the interim Solicitor General, Sarah Harris, isn’t a lawyer for President Trump, but a lawyer for the United States of America. [read post]
12 Mar 2025, 9:28 pm
In House of Representatives v. [read post]
12 Mar 2025, 7:44 pm
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. [read post]
10 Mar 2025, 6:57 am
United States, a 1935 decision upholding the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the FTC. [read post]
8 Mar 2025, 5:35 pm
In United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2025, 12:30 pm
" For more than 20 years, Montana, the United States, and hydroelectric dam owners have litigated about which government owns the riverbeds where the dams sit, and, thus, to whom the dam owners must pay rent. [read post]
6 Mar 2025, 5:46 am
In a petition to the Supreme Court filed in Department of State v. [read post]
6 Mar 2025, 3:11 am
In a decision last year, United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2025, 11:56 am
Ct. 926 (Mem.) (2021); United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2025, 7:55 pm
Judge Harris Hartz dissented, citing Supreme Court precedent recognizing that “speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals. [read post]
27 Feb 2025, 5:48 am
In the end, as Secretary Schlesinger explained, the suspension orders were not transmitted only because the fast-moving events in the United States courts and the time lag between the United States and Cambodia made it impossible to effectuate timely service of Justice William Douglas’ order on the Secretary of Defense. [read post]
26 Feb 2025, 6:44 pm
It recently filed such a letter in United States v. [read post]
25 Feb 2025, 3:42 pm
United States last July, critics warned of dire consequences for the U.S. constitutional order. [read post]
25 Feb 2025, 8:26 am
Harris pointed out a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
25 Feb 2025, 7:46 am
United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) [2]Seila Law LLC v. [read post]
21 Feb 2025, 12:46 pm
The caption reads Missouri v. [read post]
