Search for: "Vikram David Amar and Jason Mazzone"
Results 41 - 60
of 60
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2020, 9:01 pm
Accordingly, we can separate the plausible scenarios from the hot air.The Challenge Is PreposterousRegular Verdict readers will have learned from an outstanding four-part series by Vikram Amar, Evan Caminker, and Jason Mazzone that the challenge to the ACA the Court hears today rests on a truly preposterous chain of reasoning.In 2010, Congress enacted the ACA, a complex law with some interrelated and many unrelated parts. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
Assume that in California v. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
As readers of this series will no doubt recall, in 2012 the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
This second installment in our series on the upcoming legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in California v. [read post]
1 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
On November 10, the Supreme Court will hear argument in California v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 9:00 pm
COVID-19 has (rightly) pushed from the headlines almost every political controversy lacking a coronavirus angle. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 8:20 am
” Law professors Vikram David Amar and Jason Mazzone have this essay online at Justia’s Verdict. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 9:00 pm
In spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that the Supreme Court’s per curiam opinion two weeks ago in the Wisconsin election case, Republican National Committee (RNC) v. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 9:01 pm
Freeing senators from party-leader retribution would be nice, but there is simply no way to do that without freeing senators from accountability to the people of the states (who themselves may prefer to be as intensely partisan as their leaders are in today’s moment), which is the whole point of popular election of senators.Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law at the University of… [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 9:01 pm
In Parts One and Two of this series, we introduced an important pending federal court challenge to Mississippi’s gubernatorial election regime, situated the dispute in constitutional context, and examined various procedural aspects of the case. [read post]
1 Dec 2019, 9:01 pm
As we explained in a column a few weeks ago, Part One in a series, an important federal lawsuit challenging Mississippi’s scheme for electing governors is wending its way through the federal courts. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 9:01 pm
Last week Mississippi voters went to the polls to elect a new governor. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm
Jason: Vik, as you know, last month three Virginia couples sued their state in federal court challenging a law requiring them to identify and report their race on the state’s marriage license application form. [read post]
19 May 2019, 9:01 pm
From the Right and from the Left, legislatures are considering—and in many cases enacting—laws that have no meaningful chance of surviving judicial challenge under the U.S. [read post]
7 Mar 2019, 9:01 pm
In our two previous columns on the recent lawsuit by a Texas-based nonprofit organization—Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP)—against Harvard Law Review (HLR) for its use of race and gender in selecting its members and authors for publication, we explored challenges the plaintiff faces in establishing standing to sue in federal court, the relationship of Title VI and IX (the statutory provisions the plaintiff has invoked) to the constitutional… [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
In our last column, we explored some threshold justiciability issues (focusing on the plaintiff’s standing to sue in federal court) in the recent federal lawsuit by a Texas-based nonprofit organization—Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP)—against Harvard Law Review (HLR), challenging HLR’s use of race and gender in selecting members and also in selecting authors for publication. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
For many law students, membership in and service on an academic journal is a highlight of the law school experience. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
This three-part series looks at intriguing constitutional questions raised by California’s statutory enactment of SB 826, which requires publicly held corporations with principal executive offices located in California to have a prescribed number of women on their boards of directors. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
Earlier this week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 826, a landmark measure that requires each publicly held corporation whose principal executive offices are located in California to have, by the end of 2019, at least one woman on its board of directors. [read post]
