Search for: "Walker v. Powers"
Results 21 - 40
of 839
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2023, 3:38 pm
That was possible because of the power of a certain imaginary of race and its consequential social relations. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 5:51 pm
Walker in Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 12:12 pm
(Judge Walker dissented.) [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
But a cursory comparison of the equivalent piece of Australian federal legislation to the legislation at issue in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo suggests it is at least not true in all cases. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 6:30 am
It is theoretically possible that the SCOTUS could draw nourishment from Ottawa to fatten up Chevron step two, in the same way that Justice Kagan rescued Auer deference from the hangman’s noose by giving it a highly contextual and reasoned structure in Kisor v Wilkie (see also the discussion of Chevron’s footnote 11 in the amicus brief of Professors Barnett and Walker). [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 5:01 am
Technologists v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 1:12 pm
In Ward v. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
See, e.g., Josh Chafetz, The New Judicial Power Grab, 67 St. [read post]
8 Aug 2023, 8:20 am
State v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
Walker of the U.S. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 5:36 am
This matters because, as Barnett and Walker recognize, the greater power to preclude review surely includes the lesser power to authorize deferential review. [read post]
30 Jul 2023, 11:24 am
United States, 99 F.2d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1938); Walker v. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 2:55 pm
This matters because, as Barnett and Walker recognize, the greater power to preclude review surely includes the lesser power to authorize deferential review. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 11:58 am
In Mark v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 9:38 am
Mo. 1937) (holding that changing votes after polls had been closed could also be prosecuted under this statute); Walker v. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 11:39 am
(2021) regarding the appointment power and final decisionmaking authority, Biestek v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 11:50 am
In Buchanan v. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 10:59 am
FERC, No. 21-1192, the Court in an opinion authored by Judge Walker and joined by Judges Millett and Childs affirmed FERC’s dismissal of the claims of a power plant developer that the tariff imposed by the New York Independent System Operator did not provide adequate notice of how costs were to be calculated. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 8:52 am
In Severino v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 9:06 am
In Moore v. [read post]
