Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Administrative Law (1)
- Business (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
-
- Economics (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Gender and Sexuality (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Medical Specialties (1)
- Medicine and Health Sciences (1)
- Nonprofit Administration and Management (1)
- Nonprofit Organizations Law (1)
- Obstetrics and Gynecology (1)
- Organizations Law (1)
- Political Economy (1)
- Public Health (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- Sociology (1)
- Taxation-Federal (1)
- Taxation-State and Local (1)
- Women's Health (1)
- Keyword
-
- Abortion (1)
- Americans for Prosperity (1)
- Amicus (1)
- Attorney General (1)
- Charitable (1)
-
- Charitable contribution (1)
- Charity (1)
- Conflicts of law (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Dobbs (1)
- Donor Disclosure (1)
- EMTALA (1)
- Emergency medicine (1)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Maternal health (1)
- Miscarriage (1)
- Moyle (1)
- Nonprofit (1)
- Preemption (1)
- Reproductive healthcare (1)
- Roe (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Section 501(c)(3) (1)
- Workability (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Amici Briefs
This amicus brief, submitted to the Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States, argues that Moyle, and the impending circuit split surrounding it, is a symptom of a larger workability problem with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization framework. Dobbs is already proving, in its brief existence, to be unworkable, and must be overturned. In short order, the Dobbs ruling has ushered in an era of unprecedented legal and doctrinal chaos, precipitating a fury of disorienting legal battles across the country. The Dobbs framework has created destabilizing conflicts between federal and state authorities, as in the current …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars Of The Law Of Non-Profit Organizations In Support Of Respondent: Americans For Prosperity Foundation V. Matthew Rodriguez, Nos. 19-251 & 19-255, Ellen P. Aprill, Roger Colinvaux, Sean Delany, James Fishman, Brian D. Galle, Philip Hackney, Jill R. Horwitz, Cindy Lott, Ray D. Madoff, Jill S. Manny, Nancy A. Mclaughlin, Richard Schmalbeck
Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars Of The Law Of Non-Profit Organizations In Support Of Respondent: Americans For Prosperity Foundation V. Matthew Rodriguez, Nos. 19-251 & 19-255, Ellen P. Aprill, Roger Colinvaux, Sean Delany, James Fishman, Brian D. Galle, Philip Hackney, Jill R. Horwitz, Cindy Lott, Ray D. Madoff, Jill S. Manny, Nancy A. Mclaughlin, Richard Schmalbeck
Amici Briefs
The twelve individuals filing this amicus brief are professors and scholars of the law of nonprofit organizations. No party in this case represents all three of charity’s key stakeholders: charities, states, and taxpayers who underwrite the charities’ funding. Amici are participating in this litigation in order to aid the Court in understanding how these three interests depend on one another. They also attempt to provide a clearer understanding of state supervision of charities and how that supervision related to federal tax law.