Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
The government intervened and filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the Act. The district court dismissed the tenant's complaint on the grounds that the Act and the promulgation of the regulation under it were unconstitutional because Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power.
"The Case for Reparations" was a journalistic breakthrough for the author; it gained a large audience after first published as the cover story of the June 2014 issue of The Atlantic. Coates' article has been a part of a greater dialogue on reparations and the United States' response to the legacy of slavery.
The brief or memorandum establishes the legal argument for the party, explaining why the reviewing court should affirm or reverse the lower court's judgment based on legal precedent and citations to the controlling cases or statutory law. To achieve these ends, the brief must appeal to the accepted forces such as statutory law or precedent, but ...
The case made near-instant headlines, as much for the unusual nature of the deaths as for the many key questions that have not yet been publicly resolved “What could possibly take this long?”
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment. In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable." [1]
Friends has become one of the most iconic shows since its inception in 1994.. The sitcom may have ended in in 2004, but its legacy has lived on in the two decades since. On Sept. 22, 2024, the ...
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed 5-4. In an opinion by Blackmun, J., it was held that the rule announced in Payton v.New York applies to a case which was pending on direct appeal when Payton was decided, Payton not having applied settled precedent to a new set of facts, not having announced an entirely new and unanticipated principle of law, nor having held either that ...