Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Struck down by United States v. Alvarez in a 6–3 decision on June 28, 2012 The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 , signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, [ 1 ] was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals .
800-290-4726 more ways to reach us. Sign in. Mail. 24/7 Help. ... and he called me yesterday afternoon." ... Trump waded into a momentous case over the future of the video-sharing app TikTok, ...
AOL latest headlines, entertainment, sports, articles for business, health and world news.
800-290-4726 more ways to reach us. Sign in. ... to block a law intended to force the sale of the short-video app by Jan. 19 or face a ban on national security grounds, at the Supreme Court, Jan ...
The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States. [3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. [3]
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal government, under the Solomon Amendment, could constitutionally withhold funding from universities if they refuse to give military recruiters access to school resources.
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans , 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment .