Claim: Stay-at-home orders “actually are the law of these states.”
Verdict: SUPPORTS

Retrieved passages:
title: Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act
text: and if the mother continually registered and had the order modified, then there would be four separate and independent support orders. RURESA provided that the state courts could modify the original order so long as the court applied its own procedural law and the substantive law of the original state, unless that application of substantive law contravened its own public policy. The Commission intended to correct the problem of inconsistent multiple orders by only allowing the support orders to be modified based upon a single state's law. In theory, states A, B and C could only modify a support order

title: State legislation in protest of federal law in the United States
text: law made through executive orders by President Obama, more than a dozen states around the US began proposing legislation that would "...declare that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states". The legislation would require that the firearm be prominently marked as being "Made in {name of state}" and further prohibit federal regulation solely on the basis that "basic materials" and "generic and insignificant parts" of the firearm may have their origins from outside the state. , 24 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maine,

title: Executive order
text: seven Muslim-majority countries, including for permanent residents, was stayed by a federal court on January 28, 2017. Executive orders issued by state governors are not the same as statutes passed by state legislatures, but do have the force of law in a similar way to the federal system. State executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect<ref name= https://www.colorado.gov/governor/executive-orders></ref><ref name= https://gov.georgia.gov/executive-orders></ref><ref name= https://www.governor.wa.gov/office-governor/official-actions/executive-orders></ref><ref name= https://www.flgov.com/all-executive-orders></ref><ref name= https://rules.utah.gov/executive-documents></ref> Executive orders may, for example, demand budget cuts from state government when the state

title: Stand-your-ground law
text: it to only when a person is within their vehicle, are North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The states that have castle doctrine only with the duty to retreat in public are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. This means that people can use deadly force in their home, car, or other form of abode but have to retreat in public. Vermont and Washington, D.C. require citizens to flee from criminal assailants, even within their own homes. Stand-your-ground laws are frequently labeled "shoot first" laws by opposition groups, including the Brady Campaign

title: Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
text: every state to defer to child support orders entered by the state courts of the child's home state. The place where the order was originally entered holds continuing exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ), and only the law of that state can be applied to requests to modify the order of child support, unless the courts of that state no longer have original tribunal jurisdiction (CEJ) under the Act. The Act also provides various direct interstate enforcement mechanisms. For example, it allows a caretaker parent to have an order mailed to the employer of the obligated parent, which will require that employer to

title: Interstate Income Act of 1959
text: office in Minnesota. However, the Court did not make clear whether the maintenance of employees in the state (who solicited orders that were delivered and accepted outside the state) would have been enough to give rise to the state’s power to impose its tax. Public Law 86-272 addressed that circumstance by acting as a 'stopgap' by restricting a state from collecting income tax on solicited sales within its borders, as long as the orders are filled or shipped outside of the state. Public Law 86-272 protects only solicitation of orders for tangible personal property. Protection applies to activities that are

title: Red flag law
text: Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont; as "Risk Protection Orders" in Florida; as "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" in California; as "risk warrants" in Connecticut; and as "Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm" in Indiana. In 1999, Connecticut was the first to enact a red flag law, following a rampage shooting at the Connecticut Lottery. It was followed by Indiana (2005), California (2014), Washington (2016), and Oregon (2017). California was the first state to pass a red flag law allowing family members to petition courts to take weapons from persons deemed a threat, after Elliot Rodger committed a mass

title: Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
text: child custody order in existence, the emergency court's order will remain in effect until a determination is made in a court having "home state" jurisdiction over the child. If no determination is made, and the emergency court's state becomes the home state of the child, the emergency order becomes a final determination of custody... Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a Uniform Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1997. The UCCJEA has since been adopted by 49 U.S. States, the District of

title: Executive Order 13771
text: chairman and Public Citizen Litigation Group lawyer David Vladeck called the executive order "unconstitutional, illegal and stupid," saying "if you really want to reduce the regulatory load, you can't use a shotgun, you have to use a scalpel." On April 17, 2017, fourteen states (West Virginia, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming) filed an amici curiae in support of the Executive Order. The Republican states argue that the Executive Order falls within allowed presidential authority and will benefit state governments. In March 2017, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) formed

title: Child support in the United States
text: the mother or father remain in the original state, the original state retains continuous exclusive jurisdiction. The second scenario is that the mother moves to Connecticut, and the father moves to a third state (state B), leaving neither party domiciled in the original state. If the order is registered in either Connecticut or in B and that state’s court issues a new order, then the original state loses jurisdiction. In the state where a new order is issued, Connecticut or state B would obtain the power to modify the order. This situation produces a race to the courthouse. The mother

title: Executive Order 13780
text: of March 10, neither side had filed a motion to uphold or stop the new order, and Judge Robart said he would not rule on the matter without one. On March 13, 2017, the Washington State Attorney General filed a second amended complaint addressing Executive Order 13780 and moved the court to enjoin enforcement of the order under the current preliminary injunction previously issued which barred enforcement of Executive Order 13769 by filing a motion for emergency enforcement of the preliminary injunction. The State of Washington in their second amended complaint asked the Court to declare that sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c),

title: Child support in the United States
text: modify the original order so long as the court applied its own procedural law and the law of the original state, unless that contravened its own public policy. The Commission intended to correct the problem of inconsistent multiple orders by only allowing the support orders to be modified based upon a single state’s law. In theory, states A, B and C could only modify a support order based upon the original state’s substantive law; thus, all the support orders should be identical. In practice, however, this rule created ambiguities concerning whether child support guidelines are procedural or substantive, and if

title: Work-at-home scheme
text: more modern media, such as television and radio adverts, and forum posts on the Internet. In some countries, law enforcement agencies work to fight work-at-home schemes. In 2006, the United States Federal Trade Commission established Project False Hopes, a federal and state law enforcement sweep that targets bogus business opportunity and work at home scams. The crackdown involved more than 100 law enforcement actions by the FTC, the Department of Justice, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and law enforcement agencies in eleven states. Legitimate work-at-home opportunities do exist, and many people do their jobs in the comfort of their

title: 100 Orders
text: will be designed to establish the basic legal framework for a functioning market economy; taking appropriate advantage of the unique opportunity for rapid progress in this area presented by the current configuration of political circumstances... Reforms are envisioned in the areas of fiscal reform, financial sector reform, trade, legal and regulatory, and privatization." Without a doubt, the 100 Orders altered Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, the 100 Orders are also illegal by international law. The Hague Regulations of 1907, and the U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10 ("The Law of Land Warfare") both limit the degree of transformation of an

title: Washington v. Trump
text: moved the court to enjoin enforcement of the order under the current preliminary injunction previously issued which barred enforcement of executive order 13769 by filing a motion for emergency enforcement of the preliminary injunction. The State of Washington in their second amended complaint asked the Court to Declare that Sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the First Executive Order 13769 are unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the United States should be enjoined from implementing or enforcing Sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the First Executive Order, including at all United

title: Domestic Abuse Restraining Order
text: order. At the present time, a pilot program will provide funds for testing such a program in some counties before it is implemented statewide. Once implemented, the program would make Wisconsin the only state in the country to order GPS monitoring for those who are under, but who have not violated, a restraining order. The program has not yet been implemented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), however. The DOJ claims that current law does not permit judges to order GPS tracking for those who have not violated a restraining order. The governor's office has pledged to tweak the

title: Home state regulation
text: Home state regulation Home state regulation is a principle in the law of the European Union for resolving conflict of laws between Member States when dealing with cross-border selling or marketing of goods and services. The principle states that, where an action or service is performed in one country but received in another, the applicable law is the law of the country where the action or service is performed. It is also called home country control, country of origin rule, or country of origin principle. It is one possible rule of EU law, specifically of European Single Market law, that

title: Child support in the United States
text: substantive, whether application of that substantive law contravened some public policy. The multiple order issue remained a problem. In 1992, NCCUSL completely revised and replaced URESA and RURESA with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to correct the problem of multiple orders. UIFSA corrected this problem by providing that only one state would possess the power to make or modify child support at any one time ("continuing exclusive jurisdiction"). The state with continuous exclusive jurisdiction would use its own child support guidelines. Thus, if the child or either one of the parents remained in the original state, then that

title: Executive Order 13780
text: and 5(e) of the first Executive Order (13769) are unauthorized by, and contrary to, the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the United States should be enjoined from implementing or enforcing sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the first Executive Order, including at all United States borders, ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas, pending further orders from this Court. The State of Washington also asked the Court to declare that sections 2(c) and 6(a) of the second Executive Order (13780) are unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States,

title: Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban
text: injunctive relief (to block enforcement of the executive order). The state also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking an immediate halt to the executive order's implementation. On February 1, Minnesota was added as a plaintiff alongside Washington. On February 3, Judge James L. Robart issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against certain provisions of the order. The ruling enjoins the government not to enforce sections 3(c), 5(a), and 5(c) of the order, and bars the government from "prioritizing the refugee claims of religious minorities" as described in sections 5(b) and 5(e). The Department of Justice filed an