Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (1923) – Overturning a lower court decision, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on cropping contracts, which technically dealt with labor rather than land and were used by many Issei to avoid the restrictions of California's alien land act. Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326 (1923) Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32 (1924)
In 2008, Citizens United produced a documentary film highly critical of Hillary Clinton called Hillary: The Movie. [14] Fearing prosecution from the FEC, the organization sought a declaratory judgment in federal court to assure their right to show the movie, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.
(The Center Square) – A unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court may pave the way for challenges to a federal deportation plan under the incoming Trump administration to be defeated. The ...
Though there were some surprises, conservatives scored major victories at the Supreme Court WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court just The post The Supreme Court just issued its biggest rulings of ...
The Supreme Court, in an unusual Sunday update to its schedule, did not specify what ruling it would issue. Colorado is one of 15 states and a U.S. territory holding primary elections on
In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding whether or not a political documentary about Hillary Clinton could be considered a political ad that must be paid for with funds regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act. [18]
[47] [48] On November 22, 2019, in light of the Trump administration's rescission of DACA and the Supreme Court cases challenging it, the court stayed the case until after the Supreme Court issues its ruling. [108] After the Supreme Court issued its ruling invalidating the rescission of DACA on APA grounds, judge Hanen resumed the case. [109]