Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule of four is not required by the US Constitution, any law, or even the Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion on hearing appeals by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925, and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988. [1]
On the morning of June 26, 2015, outside the Supreme Court, the crowd celebrates the Court's decision. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel ...
Before 1990, the rules of the Supreme Court also stated that "a writ of injunction may be granted by any Justice in a case where it might be granted by the Court." [197] However, this part of the rule (and all other specific mention of injunctions) was removed in the Supreme Court's rules revision of December 1989.
A petition for certiorari before judgment, in the Supreme Court of the United States, is a petition for a writ of certiorari in which the Supreme Court is asked to immediately review the decision of a United States District Court, without an appeal having been decided by a United States Court of Appeals, for the purpose of expediting the proceedings and obtaining a final decision.
The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to take up a dispute over a medication used in the most common method of abortion in the United States, its first abortion case since it overturned Roe v.
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that there is no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy (and thus no search) when officers hovering in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house conduct surveillance. [10]