Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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.
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court landmark [2] case in which the Court ruled on the applicability of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. [2]
Johnston, in which the court dismissed a challenge to a congressional act regulating child labor as moot, in support of the first rule. [14] 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]
Another example is the D.C. Circuit Court's 2007 ruling in Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach that compelling government interest was demonstrated in the restriction of unapproved prescription drugs. [1] The burden of proof falls on the state in cases that require strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, but not the rational basis.
The court characterized the press as "the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal" process. [ 6 ] Burger noted, "The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny ...
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those the Constitution specifies.
Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent ...