Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court then further addressed an argument that the Florida law contradicted with a law passed by Congress on the regulation of sponge fishing as well, thereby meaning the Florida law must be void due to the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court did an examination of the federal law (16 U.S.C § 781), which states as follows, "Sec . 2.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. [1]
Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 374 (1820), was a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the proper boundary between the states of Indiana and Kentucky was the low-water mark on the western and northwestern bank of the Ohio River.
Florida claimed that the state line was a straight line (called McNeil's line, for the man who surveyed it for the U.S. government in 1825) from the confluence of Georgia's Chattahoochee and Flint rivers (forming the Apalachicola River, at a point now under Lake Seminole), then very slightly south of due east to the source of the St. Mary's River, which was the point specified in Pinckney's ...
When a case is between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction, and no lower court may hear such cases. In one of its earliest cases, Chisholm v. Georgia, [2] the court found this jurisdiction to be self-executing, so that no further congressional action was required to permit the court to exercise ...
Pages in category "Internal territorial disputes of the United States" The following 54 pages are in this category, out of 54 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
The Supreme Court earlier this month tossed out an appeal from anti-abortion doctors challenging expanded access to the abortion pill mifepristone. In March, it ruled that states couldn’t yank ...
Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), was a landmark case [1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another. [2] The case was a reaffirmation of the principle that citizens select states and not the other way round. [3]