Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In declining to step aside from two high-profile Supreme Court cases, Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday provided a rare window on the opaque process by which justices decide to step aside from cases.
The term "recuse" originates from the Latin word "recusare," meaning "to demur," or "object" reflecting the fundamental principle of rejecting participation when impartiality is in doubt. [3] The word "recuse" traces its origins to the Anglo-French term "recuser," meaning "to refuse," which itself comes from the Middle French and Latin "recusare."
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave widely anticipated testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday afternoon.
A U.S. judge on Tuesday declined to recuse herself from presiding over the criminal case against a man who is facing charges for trying to assassinate former president and Republican presidential ...
On rare occasions, a party to a case will ask a justice to recuse. In one notable example, the Sierra Club asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse from a 2004 case about an energy task force convened by then-Vice President Dick Cheney after reports that Scalia and Cheney, old friends, went duck-hunting together.
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of ripeness a claim in which the plaintiff accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen's political activity."