query: supreme court cases dealing with the 19th amendment

pos: Leser v. Garnett Leser v. Garnett Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had been constitutionally established. On August 26, 1920, the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was certified by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby. The amendment reads as follows: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide "Whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution." The plaintiffs disputed the constitutionality of the amendment through three claims: In a unanimous decision, the court addressed

neg: Paul M. Smith an active Supreme Court practice, including oral arguments in nineteen Supreme Court cases. These arguments have included two congressional redistricting cases, "Lawrence v. Texas", involving the constitutionality of the Texas sodomy statute, "United States v. American Library Association", involving a First Amendment challenge to the Children's Internet Protection Act and "Mathias v. WorldCom" (2001), dealing with the Eleventh Amendment immunity of state commissions. Smith also worked extensively on several other First Amendment cases in the Supreme Court, involving issues ranging from commercial speech to defamation to "adult" speech on the Internet. In February 2017, it was announced that Smith would

neg: Spaziano v. Florida the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The "Spaziano" ruling was vitiated by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in another death penalty case, "Hurst v. Florida" (2016). Spaziano v. Florida Spaziano v. Florida, was two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the imposition of the death penalty. In the first case, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981), the Supreme Court, with two dissents, refused Spaziano's petition for certiorari. However, the Florida Supreme Court would reverse Spaziano's death sentence based on the judge's receipt of a confidential report which was not received by either party. On remand, the judge reimposed the

neg: Stovall v. Denno case en banc and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Stovall's petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. "Stovall" was decided on the same day as "United States v. Wade" and "Gilbert v. California", two cases dealing with the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in pretrial stages. The Court observed that the rule of "Wade", where the absence of counsel at a post-indictment lineup was held to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment, would dictate the finding of a Sixth Amendment violation in the present case. The Court, however, held that the rule of "Wade" should not be applied retroactively.

neg: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said was the pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the process of continued addition to the Constitution, until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far as constitutional law can accomplish it. In the "Civil Rights Cases" (1883), the Supreme Court reviewed five consolidated cases dealing with the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which outlawed racial discrimination at "inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement". The Court ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment

neg: Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland exceptions that could go directly to the Supreme Court. The Thirty-third Amendment makes appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court subject to obtaining the Supreme Court's leave. Such leave would only be granted in cases of general public importance or in the interests of justice. The intent of the amendment was to reduce the work load of the Supreme Court, allowing it to concentrate on a smaller number of more important cases. Before the adoption of the amendment, the Supreme Court had mandatory jurisdiction—civil cases decided by the High Court were directly appealable to the Supreme Court,

neg: Privacy and the US government of the family preceded the right to freedom of the press and concurred in favor of the plaintiff. The U.S. Supreme Court however later overruled this decision stating that the press's First Amendment right still applied. The Supreme Court was heavily influenced by the article The Right to Privacy in this Court decision, and would later use the verbiage of the article in other court cases dealing with privacy. The Right to Privacy, written by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, heavily influenced the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Cox Broadcasting Corp v Cohn at the State level. Often

neg: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution list of States included both Alabama and Georgia, as well as Ohio and New Jersey. The inclusion of Ohio and New Jersey has led some to question the validity of rescission of a ratification. The inclusion of Alabama and Georgia has called that conclusion into question. While there have been Supreme Court cases dealing with ratification issues, this particular question has never been adjudicated. The Fourteenth Amendment was subsequently ratified: Since Ohio and New Jersey re-ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 2003, all U.S. states that existed during Reconstruction have ratified the amendment. Section 1 of the amendment formally defines United

neg: United States Bill of Rights the term "excessive" open to interpretation. The most frequently litigated clause of the amendment is the last, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. This clause was only occasionally applied by the Supreme Court prior to the 1970s, generally in cases dealing with means of execution. In "Furman v. Georgia" (1972), some members of the Court found capital punishment itself in violation of the amendment, arguing that the clause could reflect "evolving standards of decency" as public opinion changed; others found certain practices in capital trials to be unacceptably arbitrary, resulting in a majority decision that effectively halted executions in the

neg: Cohen v. California limited to its facts", it has not been used in future cases pertaining to the regulation of offensive speech, such as FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. As a result, the ruling has been contradicted in future cases that have attempted to interpret the limitations of the First Amendment in specific contexts. Cohen v. California Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a conviction against Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors

neg: Supreme Administrative Court (Austria) court. Nominees cannot be members of a national or provincial cabinet or legislative body. For the purpose of actually trying cases, the court is partitioned into 21 panels () of either three or five members. Each panel is responsible for cases in a specific area of law − asylum law, aliens' law, procurement law, housing and construction law, and so on. Panels dealing with administrative penal cases have three members; all other panels have five. If a panel of five is dealing with a question with regards to which existing Supreme Administrative Court case law is inconsistent, the panel has

neg: Supreme Court of California six sitting justices, with the senior judge among that group serving as the acting Chief Justice; that acting Supreme Court eventually denied the petition for review. The Constitution of California gives the Court mandatory and exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases imposing capital punishment in California, although the Court has sponsored a state constitutional amendment to allow it to assign death penalty appeals to the California Courts of Appeal. The Court has discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all cases reviewed by the Courts of Appeal; the latter were created by a 1904 constitutional amendment to relieve the Supreme Court of most

neg: Freedom of religion in the United States struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion, press and speech. In the United States, many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. Of the 72 cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses that have been brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court has ruled in favor of them 47 times. Even the cases that the Jehovah's Witnesses lost helped the U.S. to more clearly define the limits of First Amendment rights. Former Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone jokingly suggested "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought

neg: Florida v. Royer Florida v. Royer Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with issues involving the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the case establishes a firm line in cases where police conduct search and seizure without a warrant. The court ruled that, while it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their behavior, absent more, they cannot detain or search such individual without a warrant. In January 1978, two undercover officers approached the plaintiff, Mr. Royer, at the Miami International Airport because he fit a drug courier profile: He was a casually

neg: Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country Witnesses won a favorable verdict in the European Court of Human Rights on June 10, 2010 in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v Russia. On April 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ruled in favor of a claim from the Ministry of Justice to liquidate the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. who appealed. In the United States, numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946. Supreme Court Justice Harlan

neg: Association of American Editorial Cartoonists Association of American Editorial Cartoonists The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC) is a professional association concerned with promoting the interests of staff, freelance and student editorial cartoonists in the United States, Canada and Mexico. With nearly 300 members, it is the world's largest organization of political cartoonists. The AAEC has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in several cases dealing with freedom of the press, including the 1988 Supreme Court case "Flynt v. Falwell" (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell). Aside from First Amendment issues, the Association does not take sides in political controversies. Formed in 1957 by a small group of newspaper cartoonists

neg: Supreme Court of India Inquiry (Amendment) Bill 2008 in parliament for setting up of a panel called the National Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice of India, that will probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct by High Court and supreme court judges. According to supreme court newsletter, there are 58,519 cases pending in the supreme court, out of which 37,385 are pending for more than a year, at the end of 2011. Excluding connected cases, there are still 33,892 pending cases. As per the latest pendency data made available by the supreme court, the total number of pending cases in the supreme

neg: Discretionary review in the appeal have a public interest, involve important legal principles, or conflict with precedents set by prior supreme courts. In Texas, discretionary review is granted to both of the state's supreme courts (Texas is one of two states with separate supreme courts for civil and criminal cases) for all but death penalty cases, which the Court of Criminal Appeals is required to review, bypassing the Texas Courts of Appeals. The 1937 Constitution of Ireland originally provided a right of appeal to the Supreme Court for all cases from the High Court. A 2013 amendment introduced a new Court of

neg: Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices the data ends with the 2016–2017 term. The term "liberal" in the Supreme Court Database represents the voting direction of the justices across the various issue areas. It is most appropriate in the areas of criminal procedure, civil rights, and First Amendment cases, where it signifies pro-defendant votes in criminal procedure cases, pro-women or -minorities in civil rights cases, and pro-individual against the government in First Amendment cases. In takings clause cases, however, a pro-government/anti-owner vote is considered liberal. The use of the term is probably less appropriate in union cases, where it represents pro-union votes against both individuals and

neg: Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette with the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment. Cases such as "Lemon v. Kurtzman", "Lynch v. Donnelly", and "County of Allegheny v. ACLU" are similarly themed situations. All of these cases showcase the Supreme Court's unclear stance on issues involving the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause. All of these court cases, along with the numerous others, show that American courts have not articulated a consistent, clear rule explaining the government's relationship to religious expression, particularly if that expression occurs in government-supported settings. The Supreme Court is still searching for a consistent rationale for deciding cases in which the First

neg: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC not narrowly tailor its regulation to the least restrictive means. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must-carry rules imposed on cable television companies. "Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II)", 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second. "Turner I" established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights. In "Turner II" the court decided that the must-carry provisions were constitutional. Under

neg: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must-carry rules imposed on cable television companies. "Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II)", 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second. "Turner I" established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights. In "Turner II" the court decided that the must-carry provisions were constitutional. Under the "Miami Herald v. Tornillo" case, it was unconstitutional to

neg: McDonald v. City of Chicago filing a lawsuit which became "McDonald v. Chicago". Despite being consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the cases are different in scope in terms of the specific regulations challenged and the legal argument for applying the Second Amendment against state and local governments. The Second Amendment Foundation brought the McDonald case to the Supreme Court with its lead attorney Alan Gura. The cases were appealed separately to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDonald challenged four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs: All of the post-"Heller" cases, including "McDonald", "NRA v.

neg: Winters v. United States use. The United States Supreme Court was not called upon to further define American Indian reserved water rights until the case of "Arizona v. California" in 1963. "Winters v. United States" was a United States Supreme Court Case with many implications. One thing that makes this case so monumental is the precedent that is set by it for United States Supreme Court cases that would follow it. "Arizona v. California" was a set of 11 United States Supreme Court cases dealing with water rights. These cases took place between the years of 1931 and 2006. The initial question of this

neg: Stephen Halbrook Stephen Halbrook Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association. He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights). He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States". He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to

neg: Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country Stratton — "). The Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses, holding that making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the first Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills. Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country Numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have been heard by Supreme Courts throughout the world. The cases revolve around three main subjects: The Supreme Courts of many states have established the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses and other faiths to engage in the practice

neg: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution courts do not have the authority to hear cases brought by private citizens against states. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity when using its authority under the Bankruptcy Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also held that federal courts can enjoin state officials from violating federal law. The Eleventh Amendment was the first Constitutional amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights. The amendment was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in "Chisholm v. Georgia", . In "Chisholm", the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to

neg: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in "Engblom v. Carey". The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states, but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause applies not only to federal courts, but also to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal." On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed

neg: Romer v. Evans Romer v. Evans Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since "Bowers v. Hardwick" (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion in "Romer" stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the

neg: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional". In this case, as in numerous "badges and incidents" cases, Justice Harlan authored a dissent favoring broader Thirteenth Amendment protections. In "Selective Draft Law Cases", the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude". In "United States v. Kozminski", the Supreme Court ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment did not prohibit compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion. "Kozminski" defined involuntary servitude for purposes of criminal prosecution as "a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced

neg: School Prayer Amendment School Prayer Amendment The School Prayer Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution intended by its proponents to protect the right of the students if they wish, to voluntarily pray in schools, although opponents argue it allows for government sponsored prayer. In the cases "Engel v. Vitale" (1962) and "Abington School District v. Schempp" (1963), the United States Supreme Court ruled that government mandated school prayer is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However voluntary prayer is not unconstitutional. The history of school prayer amendment began in 1962 with the Supreme Court case of

neg: Evans v. Jordan Evans v. Jordan Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 199 (1815), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that someone who had copied a patented invention after the patent had expired, and before the patent was restored by a private bill, would be liable for damages for patent infringement for any use continuing after the patent was restored. It was the second published Supreme Court decision on patent law, and the first of four Supreme Court cases dealing with the Oliver Evans flour mill patent. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to "Evans

neg: James Goodale as a member of the press, he was protected by the First Amendment. Caldwell and the New York Times won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, thereby establishing reporter's privilege for the first time in any court. In 1972, "Caldwell v. United States" was merged with two other similar cases at the Supreme Court and became known as "Branzburg v. Hayes". Goodale crafted the media's strategy at the Supreme Court level. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned Caldwell's case and held reporters, in the circumstances of the case, do not have a First Amendment right to protect

neg: Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka 19 petitions were filed with regard to the new amendment. Five of them were filed for the amendment while 14 petitions were filed against it. A panel of Supreme Court Judges led by Chief Justice K. Sri Pavan started to consider the petitions on 4 March 2015. The other Supreme Court judges who sat on the panel were Chandra Ekanayake and Priyasad Depp. While presenting his submissions, the Attorney General told the court that the 19th Amendment could be passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament without calling for a referendum. At that point, the Chief Justice pointed out that

neg: Civil Rights Cases Civil Rights Cases The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five US Supreme Court constitutional law cases. Against the famous dissent of Justice Harlan, a majority held the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional, because Congress lacked authority to regulate private affairs under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Thirteenth Amendment "merely abolishes slavery". The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had banned race discrimination in access to services offered to the public. The decision was effectively reversed in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court from 1937, and finally by legislation under the Civil Rights

neg: Timbs v. Indiana believed that while the question did favor Timbs' case, the Court appeared to be ready to vacate the Indiana Supreme Court decision and rehear the case to determine if the forfeiture of the vehicle was to be considered as an excessive fine. Timbs v. Indiana Timbs v. Indiana (Docket #17-1091) is a pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the applicability of the Eighth Amendment, in regards to excessive fines, applying to actions taken by state and local governments such as asset forfeiture within the context of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

neg: Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka and 10 April. Since the 19th Constitutional Amendment Draft Bill was presented to Parliament by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on 24 March 2015, 19 petitions were filed with regard to the new amendment. Five of them were filed for the amendment while 14 petitions were filed against it. On 9 April 2015 the petitions were considered and the amendment was reviewed by a panel of Supreme Court Judges led by Chief Justice K. Sri Pavan and determined that it was consistent with the Constitution. While presenting his submissions, the Attorney General told the court that the 19th Amendment could be

neg: Supreme Court of Indonesia are regularly reported in the Indonesian media and are commented on by lawyers who have won cases in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court of Indonesia The Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia () is the independent judicial arm of the state. It maintains a system of courts and sits above the other courts and is the final court of appeal. It can also re-examine cases if new evidence emerges. The Supreme Court is independent as of the third amendment to the Constitution of Indonesia. The Supreme Court has oversight over the high courts ("Pengadilan Tinggi") and district courts ("Pengadilan

neg: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law. In "Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer", , the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may abrogate state immunity from suit under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In "Central Virginia Community College v. Katz", , the Court ruled the Congress could do the same regarding bankruptcy cases by way of of the Constitution. In "Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga.", , the Supreme Court ruled that when a state invokes a federal court's removal jurisdiction, it waives the Eleventh Amendment in the removed case. The

neg: Gun politics in the United States U.S. Constitution, which would include the Second Amendment, "following John Randolph Tucker's famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist Haymarket Riot case, "Spies v. Illinois"": Since the late 19th century, with three key cases from the pre-incorporation era, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently ruled that the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) restricted only Congress, and not the States, in the regulation of guns. Scholars predicted that the Court's incorporation of other rights suggested that they may incorporate the Second, should a suitable case come before them. The first major federal firearms law passed in the 20th century

neg: Court system of Canada but the hearing of the appeal was delayed by the outbreak of World War II. in 1946, the Judicial Committee finally heard the appeal and upheld the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court, clearing the way for Parliament to enact legislation to end all appeals to the Judicial Committee, whether from the Supreme Court or from the provincial courts of appeal. In 1949, Parliament passed an amendment to the "Supreme Court Act" which abolished all appeals, making the Court truly the Supreme Court. However, cases which had been instituted in the lower courts prior to the amendment could

neg: Supreme court cases, when dealing with federal law or conflicting rulings. The Superior Labour Tribunal ("Tribunal Superior do Trabalho") reviews cases involving labour law. The Superior Electoral Tribunal ("Tribunal Superior Eleitoral") is the court of last resort of electoral law, and also oversees general elections. The Superior Military Tribunal ("Tribunal Superior Militar") is the highest court in matters of federal military law. In Croatia, the supreme jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court, which secures a uniform application of laws. The Constitutional Court exists to verify constitutionality of laws and regulations, as well as decide on individual complaints on decisions on governmental

neg: Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond his dissenting opinion he wrote: "The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of individuals to make personal choices.. A mature individual's choice of an adult sexual partner, in the privacy of his or her own home, would appear to me to be a decision of the utmost private and intimate concern." The two plaintiffs appealead to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court provided a one-sentence summary affirmation of the district court's decision. "Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond" was the first U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with homosexual

neg: People v. Aguilar Illinois, and were dismissed based on earlier U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. The cases were appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed based on the same reasoning. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the Second Amendment was applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and clarified that "self-defense was 'the "central component" of the right itself.'" In 2011, two federal lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of Illinois and the Central District of Illinois. In both cases, the plaintiffs claimed that AUUF statute violated the Second

neg: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution States citizenship and also protects various civil rights from being abridged or denied by any state or state actor. Abridgment or denial of those civil rights by private persons is not addressed by this amendment; the Supreme Court held in the "Civil Rights Cases" (1883) that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals or organizations (though Congress can sometimes reach such discrimination via other parts of the Constitution). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that "individual invasion of individual

neg: Glasser v. United States began with the Supreme Court's decision in "Glasser v. United States"." Prof. Barbara Underwood has opined that: Equal protection may have seemed inapt to the litigants or to the Court for a case of sex discrimination in 1942, or it may have seemed inapt for a case of cross-group challenge. The Sixth Amendment was not again invoked by the Supreme Court against jury discrimination for thirty years; the Sixth Amendment did not (yet) apply to state juries, and in federal cases the Court seemed to prefer its supervisory power over lower federal courts. The Supreme Court would eventually reverse criminal

neg: Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island traditionally been interpreted as supplying the Supreme Court with inherent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court sits in Georgetown, Summerside, and the provincial capital of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. It deals with pre-trial matters and hears trials dealing with such cases as family matters, estate and probate, as well as indictable criminal matters, which can be heard with or without a jury. It also hears applications for judicial reviews concerning the decisions of tribunals with the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island. Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (also called the Prince Edward Island Supreme

neg: Chancery Amendment Act 1858 law, and it is still valid in Ontario under the Courts of Justice Act 1984 and British Columbia under the Supreme Court Act 1986. The Act was influential as the first step towards a unified High Court, with equal abilities for both equity and common law branches. Evidence suggests that the changes were easily absorbed by the Court, and there are no cases which suggest it caused problems either in cases or in Parliament. Primary Sources Secondary Sources Chancery Amendment Act 1858 The Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 27) also known as Lord Cairns' Act after

neg: Supreme Court of Queensland of the Supreme Court allows its Court of Appeal to hear cases on appeal from the District Court, the trial division of the Supreme Court, and a number of other judicial tribunals in Queensland. Decisions made by the Supreme Court may be heard on appeal to the High Court of Australia. The Supreme Court of Queensland was founded on 7 August 1861, with the assent of the "Supreme Court Constitution Amendment Act 1861" (Qld). Two subsequent pieces of legislation, including the "Additional Judge Act 1862" (Qld) and the "Supreme Court Act 1863" (Qld), were also necessary to establish the court's

neg: Judiciary of El Salvador Judiciary of El Salvador The judiciary of El Salvador comprises a number of courts in a hierarchy. The highest court is the Supreme Court of El Salvador, consisting of 4 different chambers, 3 courts of appeal and a constitutional court. Below the Supreme Court are intermediate appeal courts, with cases heard by panels of three judges. Below them are the civil and criminal courts of first instance, with cases heard by one judge, but sentencing is carried out by three judges. At the lowest level are justices of the peace, dealing with cases involving smaller amounts of money or personal

neg: Fundamental rights the Constitution to all U.S. states. In 1873, the Supreme Court essentially nullified the key language of the 14 Amendment that guaranteed all "privileges and immunities" to all U.S. persons, in a series of cases called the Slaughterhouse cases. This decision and others allowed post-emancipation racial discrimination to continue largely unabated. Later Supreme Court justices found a way around these limitations without overturning the Slaughterhouse precedent: they created a concept called Selective Incorporation. Under this legal theory, the court used the remaining 14 Amendment protections for equal protection and due process to "incorporate" individual elements of the Bill of Rights

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution responsibility. The Supreme Court found that freedom, but not responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment and so it ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish. Content-based regulation of television and radio, however, have been sustained by the Supreme Court in various cases. Since there is a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, the government licenses them to various companies. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the problem of scarcity does not allow the raising of a First Amendment issue. The government may restrain

neg: Establishment Clause to remove the monument, but he refused to comply, ultimately leading to his removal from office. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the lower court's decision to stand. On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, "Van Orden v. Perry" and "McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky". These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since "Stone v. Graham" (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In "Van Orden", the Court upheld, by a 5–4 vote, the legality of

neg: Timbs v. Indiana Timbs v. Indiana Timbs v. Indiana (Docket #17-1091) is a pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the applicability of the Eighth Amendment, in regards to excessive fines, applying to actions taken by state and local governments such as asset forfeiture within the context of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As formulated, the United States Bill of Rights was meant only to restrict power of the federal government and not at state or local levels, confirmed by the Supreme Court in "Barron v. Baltimore" (1833). However, following the American Civil War, Congress

neg: Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association alleged the government-required fee for advertising was compelled speech and violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The USDA argued the advertising was government speech immune from First Amendment challenge. The district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had found for the Livestock Marketing Association previously, ruling that the program violated the First Amendment and that the advertising was compelled and not government speech. In a parallel petition (No. 03–1165), the Nebraska Cattlemen sided with the USDA and sued the Livestock Marketing Association. At the Supreme Court, the two cases were consolidated. The Supreme Court's decision was

neg: Civil Rights Cases the Civil Rights Act of 1875, but under the Commerce Clause of Article I instead of the 14th Amendment; the Court held it to be constitutional in "Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States", . Civil Rights Cases The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five US Supreme Court constitutional law cases. Against the famous dissent of Justice Harlan, a majority held the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional, because Congress lacked authority to regulate private affairs under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Thirteenth Amendment "merely abolishes slavery". The Civil Rights Act of

neg: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution v. Heller", in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Since "Heller", the United States courts of appeals have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws. The following are post-"Heller" cases, divided by Circuit, along with summary notes: D.C. Circuit First Circuit Second Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Ninth Circuit On June 27, 2008, a day after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller", the Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial that the Second Amendment should be repealed

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution with the national defense, they will be punished. Hundreds of prosecutions followed. In 1919, the Supreme Court heard four appeals resulting from these cases: "Schenck v. United States", "Debs v. United States", "Frohwerk v. United States", and "Abrams v. United States". In the first of these cases, Socialist Party of America official Charles Schenck had been convicted under the Espionage Act for publishing leaflets urging resistance to the draft. Schenck appealed, arguing that the Espionage Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In "Schenck v. United States", the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Schenck's appeal and affirmed his

neg: Hollingsworth v. Perry relevant cases. The case was docketed with the Supreme Court at 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (Docket No. 12-144)". " In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held in the case "In re Marriage Cases" that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the California Constitution. The following month, same-sex couples were able to marry in California. In November 2008, California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage. Following the adoption of Proposition 8, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment under various state constitutional provisions. On May 26,

neg: Same-sex marriage in Colorado On November 7, 2006, Colorado voters approved Amendment 43, a state initiated constitutional amendment that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in the Constitution of Colorado The amendment passed by a margin of 56% to 44%. There are five court cases dealing with same-sex marriage in Colorado. They are "Brinkman v. Long", a state district court case, ruling in favor of same-sex marriage; "Burns v. Hickenlooper", a U.S. district court (i.e. federal) case, ruling in favor of same-sex marriage; "Kitchen v. Herbert" and "Bishop v. Smith", two decisions out of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirm same-sex

neg: Kentucky Court of Appeals Court of Appeals frequently hear cases in courthouses all over Kentucky. The Kentucky Court of Appeals hears appeals from the Kentucky Circuit Courts, with the exception of criminal cases involving sentences of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of twenty years or more, in which appeals are taken directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court. In addition, original actions may be filed with the Kentucky Court of Appeals in certain situations. Prior to the 1975 constitutional amendment the Clerk of the Court of Appeals was an elected position. This elected position was abolished by the 1975 constitutional amendment. Former governor Martha Layne

neg: Law report the various provincial High Courts, the Service, Professional and Election Tribunals as well as the superior courts of territories such as Azad Kashmir. PLD is augmented by other books, most notably the "Yearly Law Reports" (YLR), and the "Monthly Law Digest" (MLD). The Supreme Court also has its own law book, the "Supreme Court Monthly Review" (SCMR), which lists more recent cases that the appex court heard. In addition, there are books dealing with specific areas of law, such as the "Civil Law Cases" (CLC), which as the name suggests deals with Civil cases; the "Pakistan Criminal Law Journal" (PCrLJ),

neg: Supreme Court of Ireland cases. This is when a Bill is referred to it by the President for an opinion on its constitutionality before promulgation under Article 26 of the Constitution or when the court must determine under Article 12 of the Constitution whether the President has become incapacitated. The Supreme Court originally had little discretion to determine which cases it hears as requirements to seek the leave of either the trial court or the Supreme Court itself before an appeal could be brought were rare. After the Thirty-third Amendment created the Court of Appeal, however, the Supreme Court's appelate jurisdiction is entirely by

neg: Copyright Remedy Clarification Act have generally followed the logic applied by the US Supreme Court in "Seminole Tribe v. Florida", and applied in the patent context in "Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank", 527 U.S. 627 (1999). In these cases the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from using its Article I powers to abrogate states' sovereign immunity (a holding that later Supreme Court cases such as Central Virginia Community College v. Katz have qualified), and that the Patent Remedy Clarification Act did not have a sufficient basis to meet Fourteenth Amendment requirements. Although most courts have

neg: Dual federalism federalism as it then existed, balancing states' rights with the protection of civil liberties, rather than simply opposing the new amendments. For instance, in "Strauder v. West Virginia" the Court sided with those who wished to overturn the law that excluded black citizens from juries, which suggests that the Court was beginning to build a set of cases that enumerated rights based on the new amendments However, in other aspects the Supreme Court reasserted states' rights in relation to the 14th Amendment in particular. In the Slaughter-house cases and "Bradwell v. Illinois" the Court supported the view that the amendment

neg: Jehovah's Witnesses and governments rid of licensees long regarded as deviant". Many United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have shaped First Amendment law. Significant cases affirmed rights such as these: By 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court had reviewed 71 cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization, two-thirds of which were decided in their favor. In 2002, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society disputed an ordinance in Stratton, Ohio that required a permit in order to preach from door to door. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Witnesses. In 2004, the Moscow City Court banned the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in

neg: Supreme Court of Argentina Supreme Court of Argentina The Supreme Court of Argentina ( literally Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation) is the highest court of law of the Argentine Republic. It was inaugurated on 15 January 1863. However, during much of the 20th century, the Court and the Argentine judicial system in general, has lacked autonomy from the executive power. The Court has recently been reformed (in 2003) by the decree 222/03. The Supreme Court functions as a last resort tribunal. Its rulings cannot be appealed. It also decides on cases dealing with the interpretation of the constitution (for example, it can

neg: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States law in the Supreme Court against citizens of the United States, issues of fact shall be tried by a jury." However, it did not decide whether the statute and the Seventh Amendment required such a jury. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States is limited to a small class of cases described in Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution, and further delineated by statute. The relevant constitutional clause states: Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard

neg: Collins v. Virginia Amendment defined through past Supreme Court cases, which allows for warrantless searches for automobiles where there is reasonable cause. Collins petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on whether the Fourth Amendment protects his rights of privacy for the area a few feet from the boundaries of his home. The Supreme Court agreed in September 2017 to hear the case. The Court heard oral arguments on January 9, 2018. In oral arguments, the Justices discussed the curtilage, the homeowner's expectation of privacy there, and the officer's right to enter on the property. They discussed the officer's right to lift

neg: Missouri v. McNeely blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, the court held that the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person. However, the Court left open the possibility that the "exigent circumstances" exception to that general requirement might apply in some drunk-driving cases. Missouri v. McNeely Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court ruled that

neg: Maryland v. Garrison and Garrison is not allowed to invoke the 4th Amendment protection. Maryland v. Garrison Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the extent of discretion given to police officers acting in good faith. The Court held that where police reasonably believe their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights. The Baltimore Police Department were executing a warrant that said the ‘3rd floor apartment’ intending to search McWebbs apartment, when the police went

neg: Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland original jurisdiction, hearing the most important cases in civil law and criminal law (in the latter case sitting as the Central Criminal Court). The High Court also acts as an appellate court for cases initially heard before the Circuit Court, a court of limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court hears appeals from the High Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal and, less often, referrals of bills from the President under Article 26 of the Constitution. While the Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution, many cases it hears are not constitutional in nature. In 1971 there were

neg: Spaziano v. Florida Spaziano v. Florida Spaziano v. Florida, was two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the imposition of the death penalty. In the first case, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981), the Supreme Court, with two dissents, refused Spaziano's petition for certiorari. However, the Florida Supreme Court would reverse Spaziano's death sentence based on the judge's receipt of a confidential report which was not received by either party. On remand, the judge reimposed the death penalty and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the sentence. In the second case, 468 U.S. 447 (1984), the Court heard Spaziano's appeal of his death sentence. Spaziano

neg: John Bingham sentence of Section 1, which defined citizenship, the amendment weathered the Senate debate without substantial change. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Despite Bingham's likely intention for the 14th Amendment to apply the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States, the US Supreme Court declined to interpret it that way in the Slaughter-House Cases and in "United States v. Cruikshank". In the 1947 case of "Adamson v. California", Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers' intent should control the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and he attached a lengthy

neg: Politics of Norway Justice. The special High Court of the Realm ("Riksrett") hears impeachment cases against members of the Government, Parliament, or Supreme Court. Following an amendment to the Norwegian constitution in February 2007, impeachment cases are heard by the five highest ranking Supreme Court justices and six lay members in one of the Supreme Court courtrooms The High Court of the Realm had generally lost most of its significance after 1884, and this institution has been passive ever since 1927. The new system is meant to restore the Riksrett to its earlier significance. Impeachment may be brought against Members of the Council

neg: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court failed to note a federal law, which applies to military court-martial proceedings, providing for the death penalty in cases of child rape. On October 1, 2008, the Court declined to reconsider its opinion in this case, but did amend the majority and dissenting opinions to acknowledge that federal law. Justice Scalia (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) wrote in dissent that "the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read 'no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.'" The first significant general challenge to capital punishment that reached the Supreme

neg: Procedures of the Supreme Court of Canada CPAC. The Court's hearings are open to the public except for certain sensitive cases where a sealing order is enacted. There are three rows of benches reserved for public seating, which are generally taken on a first-come, first-served basis except where it is reserved by counsel or parties in the appeal. Initially, all civil and criminal cases had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. An amendment to the "Supreme Court Act" in 1975 required that parties wishing to appeal must apply for "leave to appeal". The only exception is a select type of more serious criminal cases where

neg: Three Judges Cases amendment and the NJAC Act restoring the two-decade old collegium system of judges appointing judges in higher judiciary. Supreme Court declared that NJAC is interfering with the autonomy of the judiciary by the executive which amounts to tampering of the basic structure of the constitution where parliament is not empowered to change the basic structure. However Supreme Court has acknowledged that the collegium system of judges appointing judges is lacking transparency and credibility which would be rectified/improved by the Judiciary. Three Judges Cases The Supreme Court of India's collegium system, which appoints judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its

neg: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution butchers. In "United States v. Cruikshank" (1876), the Court ignored Thirteenth Amendment dicta from a circuit court decision to exonerate perpetrators of the Colfax massacre and invalidate the Enforcement Act of 1870. The Thirteenth Amendment was not solely a ban on chattel slavery, but also covers a much broader array of labor arrangements and social deprivations. As the U.S. Supreme Court explicated in the Slaughter-House Cases with respect to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment in special: Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any

neg: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Commissioner", the Tax Court said: In the late 19th century and early 20th century, many legal observers believed that the Supreme Court had erred in designating some income taxes as direct taxes. The Supreme Court had previously rejected the argument that income taxes constituted direct taxes in "Springer v. United States" (1881). Some legal scholars continue to question whether the Supreme Court ruled correctly in "Pollock", but others contend that the original meaning of direct taxes did indeed include income taxes. The federal courts' interpretations of the Sixteenth Amendment have changed considerably over time and there have been many disputes

neg: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights the "Slaughterhouse Cases". Many of the provisions of the First Amendment were applied to the States in the 1930s and 1940s, but most of the procedural protections provided to criminal defendants were not enforced against the States until the Warren Court of the 1960s, famous for its concern for the rights of those accused of crimes, brought state standards in line with federal requirements. The following list enumerates, by amendment and individual clause, the Supreme Court cases that have incorporated the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. (The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it "is

neg: Kentucky Supreme Court Kentucky Supreme Court The Kentucky Supreme Court was created by a 1975 constitutional amendment and is the state supreme court of the U.S. state of Kentucky. Prior to that the Kentucky Court of Appeals was the only appellate court in Kentucky. The Kentucky Court of Appeals is now Kentucky's intermediate appellate court. Criminal appeals involving a sentence of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of twenty years or more are heard directly by the Kentucky Supreme Court, bypassing the Kentucky Court of Appeals. All other cases are heard on a discretionary basis on appeal from the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The

neg: Hyde Amendment Hyde Amendment did not violate the Establishment Clause under the First Amendment or due process/equal protection provided by the Fifth Amendment. This case decided the single exception for the Amendment would be in cases where the woman's life is endangered. This decision was upheld from fiscal years 1981-1993. While the Supreme Court came close to reintroducing exceptions for cases of rape or incest in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri, President George H.W. Bush succeeded in vetoing the bill despite an attempted House override. This decision left the Amendment with the sole exception of concern being endangered life of

neg: Doggett v. United States had placed too much emphasis on Doggett's inability to prove actual prejudice. The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in 1991. In a 5–4 decision in favor of Doggett, Justice Souter wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Souter noted that the question before the court was whether or not eight and half years between the plaintiff's indictment and arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Citing previous Supreme Court cases, Justice Souter notes, "[The Supreme Court has] observed in prior cases that unreasonable delay between formal accusation and trial threatens to produce more

neg: Congressional power of enforcement power delegated (granted, given) to it by the Constitution. Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's enforcement provision has been the subject of several important Supreme Court cases, which reflect the tension between the Courts' role of interpreting the Constitution and Congress's power of adopting legislation to enforce specific Constitutional amendments. Early on, in the "Civil Rights Cases" decided in 1883, the Supreme Court concluded that the Congressional enforcement power in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment did not authorize Congress to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause of that amendment to ban racial discrimination in public accommodations operated by private persons,

neg: Constitution of New Hampshire schools. In 1993, the New Hampshire supreme court agreed with school districts near Claremont in the first of several "Claremont" cases that Article 83 made equal public education a state responsibility. The "Claremont" cases began an era in which the supreme court repeatedly found school–funding legislation unconstitutional. In 2009, the court found the original suit was moot and the "Claremont" era ended. The General Court has debated, but has never approved, a constitutional amendment that would align the right of education with the legislature's authority to appropriate funds and the desire for local control. The second half of Article 83,

neg: Slaughter-House Cases favor of Crescent City in all cases. Six cases were appealed to the Supreme Court. The butchers based their claims on the due process, privileges or immunities, and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been ratified by the states five years earlier. It had been passed with the intention of protecting the civil rights of the millions of newly emancipated freedmen in the South, who had been granted citizenship in the United States. The butchers' attorney, former Supreme Court Justice John Archibald Campbell, who had retired from the federal bench because of his Confederate loyalties, represented persons

neg: County of Riverside v. McLaughlin County of Riverside v. McLaughlin County of Riverside v. McLaughin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of whether suspects arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) must be brought into court within a reasonable amount of time to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody. The "County of Riverside v. McLaughlin" (1991) case was a court case dealing with the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution in a probable cause case involving a warrantless arrest. In this instance, the Fourth Amendment is used

neg: Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board be invalidated on First Amendment grounds and had been by the Court in prior cases, the Court stated that the present case was different because of the seriousness of the threat that international Communism posed. The Court would not question Congress's findings regarding that threat, and would not reject its methods of dealing with it just because they might choose different methods. Third, the Court deemed the Party's challenge under the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination premature. The Party claimed that admitting to be an officer of the Party was recognized as incriminating, and that its officers would invoke the

neg: States' rights acts of the federal government. In "McDonald v. City of Chicago" (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore fully applicable to states and local governments. Furthermore, "United States v. Harris" (1883) held that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to an 1883 prison lynching on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to state acts, not to individual criminal actions. In the "Civil Rights Cases" (1883), the Supreme Court allowed segregation by striking down

neg: Curtilage an open highway, they are prohibited from peering into the windows of a private home from the front porch, absent probable cause. The Fourth Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects". In modern cases, the Supreme Court interprets "a house" to mean "a home and its curtilage". It is not obvious when the Court first equated "house" with "home", though "Prigg v. Pennsylvania" (1842) seems to assume that "house" means "home". The first uses of the term "curtilage" by the Supreme Court appeared in the decisions of two unrelated cases from 1864. "United States v. Stone" (1864), involved a boundary

neg: Cultural assimilation of Native Americans Constitution". This case resulted in Congress continuing to prohibit the sale of liquor to American Indians. The ruling continued to suggest that American Indians needed protection. There were several United States Supreme Court cases during the assimilation era that focused on the sovereignty of American Indian nations. These cases were extremely important in setting precedents for later cases and for legislation dealing with the sovereignty of American Indian nations. "Ex parte Crow Dog" was a US Supreme Court appeal by an Indian who had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. The defendant was an American Indian who

neg: Campaign finance reform amendment law. In fact, Chief Justice Waite’s statement in "Santa Clara County" was inserted in the headnote, which was not part of the Court’s opinion and not considered precedent, but the doctrine was clearly affirmed in subsequent cases in "Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania" (1888) and "Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway v. Beckwith" (1889). In the 307 Fourteenth Amendment cases heard by the Supreme Court in the years following "Santa Clara County," 288 cases involved corporations compared to 19 cases involving African Americans, its intended recipients. The Court reaffirmed its "Santa Clara County" precedent in the landmark case "Lochner

neg: Three Judges Cases aspect about the new setup that the Government through the amendment seeks to achieve is the composition of the judicial appointment commission, the responsibility of which the amendment bill lays on the hands of the Parliament to regulate by way of Acts, rules, regulations etc. passed through the regular legislative process. In judgement on the presidential reference, Supreme Court has dealt elaborately, the modality of rendering recommendation by a constitutional entity such as Supreme Court, President of India, etc, It is not at the discretion of the person consulted to render the recommendation but internal consultations with the peers shall

neg: Mian Saqib Nisar On 19 February 2010, Justice Nisar, alongside with A.S. Khosa, were sworn as justices of the Supreme Court in a simple ceremony. He was a member of the Supreme Court bench which heard the case against 21st Constitutional Amendment, the amendment which authorized the establishment of military courts to hear terrorism cases after the incident which killed 141 people including 132 children in a school in Peshawar on 16 December 2014. He also heard the case where Pakistan Railways's land worth Rs10 billion was allotted to Royal Palm Golf Club by Musharraf government which federal government of Nawaz Sharif wanted

neg: Hunter v. Erickson enacted by the city council dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing was not to be effective unless approved by a majority of the city voters at a regular or general election, and that any such ordinance in effect at the time of the charter amendment ceased to be effective until approved by the voters. The trial court denied appellant's housing discrimination complaint, holding that the fair housing ordinance was rendered ineffective by the charter amendment. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the trial court's ruling that a city's fair housing ordinance was rendered ineffective by a charter

neg: Maryland v. Garrison Maryland v. Garrison Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the extent of discretion given to police officers acting in good faith. The Court held that where police reasonably believe their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights. The Baltimore Police Department were executing a warrant that said the ‘3rd floor apartment’ intending to search McWebbs apartment, when the police went upstairs they searched the 3rd floor and found drugs and cash.

neg: Buckley v. Valeo 1st and 5th Amendment rights to freedom of expression and due process, respectively. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that several key provisions of the Campaign Finance Act, § 608(a), which limited expenditure by political campaigns, are unconstitutional and contrary to the First Amendment. The major holdings were as follows: The Court's opinion begins by stating certain "General Principles", and then dealing with individual parts of the law in turn. Only eight Justices heard the case. The opinion was a per curiam opinion, that is, not authored by a single justice, but an opinion for the Court.

neg: Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka 90,000 persons. J. R. Jayewardene who came to office in July 1977 with a five-sixths majority passed the second amendment to the 1972 Constitution on 4 October 1977 and then Prime Minister Jayawardene became the first Executive President of Sri Lanka on 4 February 1978. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka concluded on 6 April 2015 considering petitions filed in connection with the 19th Constitutional Amendment. The respective verdict was submitted to the President as well as the Speaker of Parliament. The 19th Constitutional Amendment Draft Bill was presented to Parliament by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on 24 March. Later

neg: Baker v. Nelson Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.

neg: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution throughout the twentieth century, though it was challenged in dissents by justices such as Hugo Black and William O. Douglas. Between 1890 and 1910, Fourteenth Amendment cases involving corporations vastly outnumbered those involving the rights of blacks, 288 to 19. In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries ("Strauder v. West Virginia", 1880) or discriminating against Chinese Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses ("Yick Wo v. Hopkins", 1886), as violations of the Equal Protection Clause. However, in "Plessy v. Ferguson" (1896), the Supreme Court held that the states