Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the "Siman Act", a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting minority languages as both the subject and medium of instruction in schools, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1]
Therefore, State X's law protects its plaintiffs, and State Y's law protects its defendants - the laws serve opposite purposes, but each state has an interest in its own law being applied, to advance its own purposes. In such a case, if the interests are balanced, the law of the forum will prevail.
Since 2021, Insider and other outlets have identified 75 members who've violated provisions of the STOCK Act, a federal conflict-of-interest law. Since 2021, Insider and other outlets have ...
National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives". [30]
Weeks after Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced Nebraska would not accept federal funds to feed children in need over the summer, an Omaha lawmaker is pushing her bill to require the state to ...
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says the federal judiciary needs to do more to ensure judges don't participate in cases where they have financial conflicts of interest. Roberts made the ...
Federal official conflict-of-interest and Travel Act [27] Democrat: Joshua Eilberg: House of Representatives: Pennsylvania 1979: Federal official conflict-of-interest [28] Democrat: Albert B. Fall: Secretary of the Interior: New Mexico: 1929 Revolving door (18 U.S.C. § 207) Teapot Dome scandal [29] Republican: Robert García: House of ...
Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978), is a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that state anti-usury laws regulating interest rates cannot be enforced against nationally chartered banks based in other states.