Search for: "United States v. Marti"
Results 41 - 60
of 368
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2022, 11:28 am
/California Clean Energy Committee v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 5:21 am
Briefly: In The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses last week’s grant in the two cell phone privacy cases, United States v. [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 12:54 pm
United States v. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 1:19 pm
” And, as to lifetime detention of U.S. persons, the bill by its very terms (thanks to an amendment introduced by Senator Feinstein) confirms what would have been the proper reading anyway—namely, that its detention authorization provision (section 1021) does not “affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in… [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 4:00 am
Marty, Elana Marty-Nelson & Eloisa C. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 5:57 pm
Anderson: Marty Lederman’s Fundamental Mistake of Law Bruce Ackerman I have learned a lot from Marty Lederman over the years, so I was surprised to find that Part 1 of his “User’s Guide to Trump v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 9:27 am
As the world anxiously watches the nuclear crisis unfold in Japan, there are growing concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants right here in the United States. [read post]
20 Apr 2014, 4:35 pm
The courts in the United States do not recognize the "well-known mark" basis for relief (but see Grupo Gigante v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 4:12 pm
United States. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 12:08 pm
Marty v. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 3:11 am
United States “retroactive have focused on the three circuits where prisoners are being denied permission to file successive petitions,” that focus “is a mistake. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 1:20 pm
by Marty Lederman By Marty Lederman and Steve Vladeck* Section 1021 of the NDAA and the Laws of War In our companion post, we explained that section 1021 of the NDAA will not have the dramatic effects that many critics have predicted–in particular, that it will not affect the unresolved question of whether the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) would authorize a future President to place a U.S citizen or resident who is apprehended in the United… [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 10:48 am
MCINTOSH v. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 1:27 am
The ramifications of this Order could be felt throughout the United States and Canada, which has similar civil rights laws to protect persons with disabilities. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 10:00 am
United States, 09-5801. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 7:54 pm
United States, and I have very little of substance to add to Jen Daskal’s thorough analysis over at Just Security, or Marty Lederman’s addendum thereto. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 4:39 am
” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman unpacks the federalism questions at the heart of Christie v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 2:49 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm
Fund v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 4:12 pm
” United States v. [read post]
