Search for: "United States v. O'CONNOR" Results 81 - 100 of 225
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2011, 7:01 am by Joshua Matz
The Hill discusses some of the amicus briefs filed recently in support of respondent Antoine Jones in United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 8:56 am by Conor McEvily
Much of the news coverage of the Court focuses on yesterday’s grants: In United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 7:19 am by Joshua Matz
At Concurring Opinions, Daniel Solove discusses United States v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 3:30 pm by Eugene Volokh
In ringing language, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s plurality opinion declared:[A] state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 8:33 am by Kiera Flynn
As an example of government erosion of privacy, the board cites United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 6:15 am by Nabiha Syed
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Jeffrey Rosen discusses United States v. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 6:46 am by Kali Borkoski
In Court coverage from the weekend, Adam Liptak of the New York Times previews United States v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 3:07 pm by Eugene Volokh
First, here’s an excerpt from Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion:The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 12:01 am by Robert Thomas (
It is unclear whether the United States Supreme Court will agree to hear this case, and, if so, whether it will overturn the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision relying on Kelo. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 12:41 pm by Laurence Tribe
Recipient of ten honorary degrees, Tribe was recently elected to the American Philosophical Society and served in 2010 as the Obama administration’s first Senior Counselor for Access to Justice – The cause of same-sex rights in the United States has enjoyed wondrous progress over the past decade.  [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 9:08 pm
This panel decision essentially abdicates judicial review of a race-conscious admissions program for undergraduate University of Texas students that favors two groups, African–Americans and Hispanics, in one of the most ethnically diverse states in the United States. [read post]