457, 474–75 (2001) (cataloguing the various congressional directives that the Court has found to be "intelligible principle[s]"). But neither in the last eighty years has the Supreme Court considered the issue when Congress offered no guidance whatsoever. The last time it did consider such ...
Appellants make a number of subsidiary arguments related to their central claim that the agency misinterpreted its own regulations, arguing that 1) the agency's interpretation contravenes congressional intent because the known and reasonably anticipated categories have allegedly been conflated; 2) that ...
Congress didn't, the SEC hasn't, and we mustn't.2 2I can only assume that the majority's insouciance for these canons of statutory construction stems from its desire to give effect to what it per- ceives as Congressional intent. Setting aside the principle that Congress' words are the ...
& Const. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) ("[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress."). ...
First, the "less restrictive-alternative analysis has never been a part of the inquiry into the validity of content-neutral regulations on speech." Turner II, 520 U.S. at 217 (quotations and citation omitted). A statute must be "narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, ...
the ruling power. Here, the only acts of violence are the rhetorical assaults by partisan zealots. Congressional action to impeach a president cannot, by definition, be a coup (an illegal act) where the power of impeachment is specifically granted to Congress by the United States Constitution....
Thus, it is simplest to recognize why entanglement is significant and treat it—as we did in Walz—as an aspect of the inquiry into a statute's effect. Not all entanglements, of course, have the effect of advanc- ing or inhibiting religion. Interaction between church and state is ...
S. 132, 142–143 (1963) ("A holding of federal exclusion of state law is inescapable and requires no inquiry into congressional design where compliance with both federal [regulations and state tort law] is a physi- cal impossibility . . ."). 7 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products ...
a retired rear admiral and Oliver L. North’s boss at the National Security Council, was convicted April 7, 1990, of two counts of lying to Congress, two counts of obstructing congressional investigators and one count of conspiring to cover up secret sales of U.S. arms to Iran and the ...