A large chunk of that space in LA is called "the Florida parishes" because they were part of the Florida territory before they were a part of Louisiana.
That could be a tricky legal question. The current law is that changes in the line of succession must be approved by all 15 Commonwealth realms. But this law was itself a regular statute passed by the Westminster parliament.
The principle of parliamentary supremacy demands that no parliament may bind the will of a future parliament. That is, could Westminster just override the 1931 statute when they pass this special "cut out Andrew" bill? There might not be a whole lot that says they can't.
The Presidential immunity does not extend to the President's underlings, such as DHS Secretary Noem, or the CBP officer that actually collected a tariff from you.
More like after they lose the prelim injunction and the stay pending appeal. My guess, in the 8th circuit, is that they stand a chance at winning the stay pending appeal, which would let them keep rolling for a while.
It's a non trivial piece of 10th amendment litigation. Maybe Minnesota has a sovereign right to investigate a homicide. But does that oblige the feds to do or not do something? Does it matter if the feds are the only way to get critical evidence? Is it important whether the feds are actively trying to thwart and deny MN's police power? Does MN have to prove they can beat the Supremacy Clause on this case before they can get stuff?
The credit card companies have always tried to prevent merchants from doing this by inserting language prohibiting either credit card surcharges or cash discounts into the contract agreements with the merchants. Obviously, credit card companies want to make it easy and convenient for consumers to use their credit cards.
I can't immediately find it, but at some point I think 10-15 years ago, some merchants sued the credit card companies over this, and they won a court ruling that said that the clauses forbidding cash discounts and surcharging are unenforceable. As a result, merchants are now free to do it, but there are various rules. And some state legislatures have started to get involved with regulating things.
For reference, Oklahoma has quite a history with alcohol prohibition. The state retained full prohibition until 1959, some 20 years after the 21st amendment and repeal of the Volstead Act.
Liquor by the drink, aka bars, were not legalized until 1984. Before then you had to pay a membership fee to join a "private club" where you could then have a bartender pour you shots out of "your" personal bottle that was kept behind the bar.
Oklahoma had 3.2 beer until 2018 when it was repealed by state referendum.
It would have been really helpful if Steve Patterson could have cited a case number or a caption or something.