Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
At least ten lawsuits challenging the executive order have been brought by various plaintiffs, including 22 U.S. state attorneys general, civil liberties and immigrants rights groups, and pregnant women. [3] [4] As of February 2025, four federal judges have issued preliminary injunctions blocking its implementation and enforcement nationwide.
Now a pair of lawsuits have put a spotlight on the legality of Musk's status as de facto administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, with federal courts -- potentially the ...
Fourteen states have filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, challenging Musk's role as head of the new Department of Government Efficiency and accusing him of being ...
The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing that the states have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nation
On Feb. 7, DOGE staffers were installed at the Department of Education and obtained administrator-level status, the lawsuit alleges. They were allegedly allowed to access the “back end” of a ...
Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Questions presented; 1. Whether Congress implicitly stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission's structure, procedures, and existence by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to "affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside" the Commission's cease-and-desist ...
The lawsuits allege that a Trump executive order signed Monday violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which gives a constitutional right of citizenship to all children born in the United ...
The Lords found the purported decision to be invalid (a nullity), because the tribunal had misconstrued the term "successor in title". Since the tribunal's determination that Anisminic did not qualify for compensation was null, Anisminic were entitled to a share of the compensation paid by the Egyptian government.