Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that any laws that try to restrict the political spending of corporations ...
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 ...
Federal district court review of determinations by federal magistrate judges United States v. Payner: 447 U.S. 727 (1980) Court's supervisory power does not allow application of exclusionary rule even where third party's Fourth Amendment rights were clearly violated Maine v. Thiboutot: 448 U.S. 1 (1980)
Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [a] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." However, justices sometimes file separate opinions, and the opinion of the Court may ...
With its ruling the Supreme Court upheld its Citizens United landmark decision. [19] While the Citizens United decision initially appeared to apply equally to state contests, [20] the Supreme Court ruled in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock that the Citizens United holding does so by applying it to Montana state law. [4]
The Supreme Court was united on the idea that Trump will remain on the ballot in Colorado and that the state cannot remove him off its ballot. But the justices were divided about how broadly the ...
The court’s legitimacy, and the very foundation of the rule of law, demand that the court take the next step and provide a way of enforcing the rules that it has adopted.
Trump’s case is different from the Supreme Court review granted to Joseph Fischer, the man appealing multiple federal crimes for his role in the January 6 breach of the US Capitol, writes Dennis ...