Search for: "United States v. Rosenstein" Results 41 - 60 of 122
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jul 2018, 5:06 am by Edith Roberts
” At American Thinker, Deborah La Fetra maintains that the “Gift Clause[s]” in state constitutions would prevent states from enacting “workarounds” to the court’s recent decision in Janus v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 4:22 am by Josh Blackman
Mueller “to serve as a Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 7:44 am by Hannah Kris
United States in the Trump v. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 3:44 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
United States, which is cited as good authority in Free Enterprise Fund v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 9:00 am by Josh Blackman
In contrast, the independent-counsel statute at issue in Morrison v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 5:49 am by Matthew Weybrecht
The Constitution of the United States establishes a unitary executive, vesting all the executive power in the president. [read post]
26 May 2018, 7:19 am by Rachel Bercovitz
  Grayson Clary summarized the Fourth Circuit’s May 9 decision in United States v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 6:21 am by Hayley Evans
   Grayson Clary summarized the Fourth Circuit decision in United States v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 12:04 am by Kevin LaCroix
”[1] DAG Rosenstein noted that the “aim” of the new policy “is to enhance relationships with our law enforcement partners in the United States and abroad, while avoiding unfair duplicative penalties. [read post]
28 Apr 2018, 12:23 pm by Quinta Jurecic
  The existing special counsel regulations only require Mueller to deliver a report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the conclusion of his investigation, and allow Rosenstein to decide whether to provide that report to Congress. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 4:26 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for Bloomberg, Joe Nocera argues that this week’s decision in Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 10:41 am by Susan Klein
Responding to the government’s argument that the Supreme Court has on previous occasions recognized that a sentencing reduction based upon Section 3582(c)(2) is not governed by the constitutional or remedial holding of United States v. [read post]