Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court announced that the Lemon test from the landmark case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) had been abandoned by the Court in later cases. Instead, the Court announced, original meaning and history govern analysis of the Establishment Clause.
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.
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: Jarecki v. G.D ...
The Case of Prohibitions (1607) (Court of Common Pleas) Bushel's Case (1670) (Court of Common Pleas): establishing the principle that a judge cannot coerce a jury to convict. Entick v Carrington [1765] 19 Howell's State Trials 1030: establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power.
The case began in the local Cook County court, when the Village government successfully sued, under the caption Village of Skokie v. NSPA, for an injunction to bar the demonstration. On April 28, 1977, village attorney Schwartz filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County for an emergency injunction against the march to be held on May 1, 1977.
Case Docket no. Question(s) presented Certiorari granted Oral argument Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra: 23-715: Whether the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not ...
Gomillion and his attorneys appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was argued by Fred Gray, an Alabama civil rights attorney, and Robert L. Carter, lead counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, with assistance from Arthur D. Shores. The defense was led by James J. Carter.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), [1] was a landmark decision [2] of the United States Supreme Court ruling 8–0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they cannot prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically motivated boycott.