Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]
Soon after the amendment's adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it invalidated. She alleged that the amendment amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution:
Under the incorporation doctrine, Supreme Court cases found that individual amendments applied to the states. The few times the Supreme Court has cited the Third Amendment in decisions, it was in consideration of general constitutional principles—particularly privacy rights. Chief among them is the decision in Griswold v.
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)
The court established a stringent limit on defamation claims by public figures more than 60 years ago in its New York Times v. Sullivan decision involving the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment ...
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech.
The trial court determined that the Council's rights under the First Amendment were not implicated because the parade was less a private event and more of an "open recreational event". Because the statute did not demand that GLIB be allowed in the parade, merely that the Council could not forbid groups based on sexual orientation, any ...