Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District (also known as Newdow v.Carey), Nos. 05–17257, 05–17344, and 06–15093, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that upheld the constitutionality of the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students in public schools.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. [1] The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of ...
The opinion says the 9th Circuit panel of judges was required to treat the school district employees' allegations about the COVID-19 vaccine as true for the purpose of analyzing whether the ...
United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Arakaki v. State of Hawai'i; Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. Arizona v. Navajo Nation; Aronow v. United States; Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon; Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2017, H.R. 196 [24] The more recent proposals have aimed to redefine the Ninth Circuit to cover California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and to create a new Twelfth Circuit to cover Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court at the end of 2020, but with Trump leaving office in January 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was rendered moot. [4] O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case on October 4, 2022. On April 24, 2023, the Court granted certiorari.
The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled in May 2020 to uphold the District Court's decision. [8] The panel did agree that the NCAA had a necessary interest in "preserving amateurism and thus improving consumer choice by maintaining a distinction between college and professional sports", but their practices still violated antitrust law.
Demers v. Austin (746 F.3d 402, 9th Cir., 2014) was a landmark decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, extending First Amendment protection to professors at public universities for on-the-job speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship, whether inside or outside of the classroom. [1]