Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is a partial chronological list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court during the Rehnquist Court, the tenure of Chief Justice William Rehnquist from September 26, 1986, through September 3, 2005. The cases are listed chronologically based on the date that the Supreme Court decided the case.
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency ...
Second of Two Cases involving compulsory registration of Communist Party members. Court upheld constitutionality of Act requiring compulsory registration. Scales v. United States: 367 U.S. 203 (1961) upheld the conviction of Junius Scales for violating of the Smith Act on the basis on his membership in the Communist Party
Judicial branch; State government; ... Judicial restraint; ... Such cases have come to comprise a substantial portion of the Supreme Court's docket.
Frankfurter's adherence to the judicial restraint philosophy was shown in the 1940 opinion he wrote for the court in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses students who had been expelled from school due to their refusal to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
The doctrine amounts to a "fundamental rule of judicial restraint," which has received the sanction of time and experience. [11] The dissent imbued the avoidance doctrine with constitutional weight by relying on earlier Supreme Court precedent relating the avoidance doctrine to the case or controversy requirement.
The court released a trio of opinions Friday that defer to the state's general assembly on matters of election law, handing Republicans a victory prior to the 2024 election cycle.
As Professor Alexander Bickel points out, however, Atherton Mills was "a case of quite conventional mootness, hardly apt as an illustration of judicial self-restraint in constitutional litigation". [15] Mootness, a justiciability doctrine, serves to ensure that a controversy is "live" and in need of judicial resolution. [16]