Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), is a US labor law case of the a United States Supreme Court, interpreting the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.
United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal.
In the United States, the concept of a working class remains vaguely defined, and classifying people or jobs into this class can be contentious. Economists and pollsters in the United States generally define "working class" adults as those lacking a college degree, [1] rather than by occupation or income.
The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113–12 (text); H.R. 258) is a United States federal law that was passed by the 113th United States Congress.The law amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that ...
Case name Citation Date decided Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal. 475 U.S. 1: 1986: Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 U.S. 41
The United States has lagged behind the social benefits that support working families when compared to other developed countries. [39] Of the twenty-one richest countries in the world, only the United States does not mandate paid parental leave, and among the industrialized Western nations only the United States does not mandate paid vacations ...
"The First Amendment is spinning out of control," Columbia law professor Tim Wu warns in a New York Times essay. While Wu ostensibly objects to Supreme Court decisions that he thinks have ...
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known as AOSI I (to distinguish it from the 2020 case), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.