Search for: "United States v. Mitchell" Results 1 - 20 of 718
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jun 2021, 8:42 am by Rohini Kurup
On April 27, the Supreme Court agreed to take up United States v. [read post]
21 May 2021, 6:28 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Blumm and Lizzy PennockLewis & Clark Law School and Lewis & Clark College – Lewis and Clark Law School PERMANENT HOMELANDS THROUGH TREATIES WITH THE UNITED STATES: RESTORING FAITH IN THE TRIBAL NATION-U.S. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am by William Ford, Victoria Gallegos
Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state for political affairs; Abigail Golden-Vázquez, vice president and founding executive director of the Aspen Institute Latinos and Society Program; and Amb. [read post]
13 Feb 2021, 9:59 am by Bryan Hawkins
Over the past couple of years, this blog has followed and discussed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. [read post]
6 Feb 2021, 8:10 am by Russell Knight
    All laws of a public nature enacted by any state or territory of the United States. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 2:34 pm by fvanloon
This latest court ruling comes in our 2017 lawsuit under the NVRA (Judicial Watch, Inc. and the United States of America v. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 5:19 pm by Kerry Shapiro
SWRCB adopted the Procedures in April 2019 to supplement state-perceived gaps in federal Clean Water Act regulation for proposed discharges of dredged or fill material to broadly defined “waters of the state,” including all wetlands within California – not just wetlands considered “Waters of the United States. [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 9:01 pm by Joseph Margulies
If he thinks the prison at Guantanamo still has a role in national security or that it provides some benefit to the United States, I welcome his views. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
However Justice Mitchell, joined by 3 other justices wrote concurring opinion that said in part:I write separately, however, to state my view that Roe v. [read post]
1 Nov 2020, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
The Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in the United States (AFC-USA) also said in its response to the Department of Homeland Security’s proposals that they could put journalists from countries with poor human rights records in danger by forcing them to return home “where they risk retaliation because they’ve done critical, truthful reporting while in the States”. [read post]