Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1]
Case name Citation Summary Bailey v. Alabama: 211 U.S. 452 (1911) peonage laws and the Thirteenth Amendment: Weems v. United States: 217 U.S. 349 (1910) cruel and unusual punishment: Bailey v. Alabama: 219 U.S. 219 (1911) Advisory opinion overturned peonage laws Muskrat v. United States: 219 U.S. 346 (1911) Advisory opinion doctrine Flint v ...
For cases brought to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the chief justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there. [218] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa (1945). [219]
The first case in which the Supreme Court found men faced sex discrimination. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) Sex-based discriminations are inherently suspect. A statute that automatically extends military benefits to the spouses of male members of the uniformed services, but requires the spouses of female members to prove they are ...
"The power of Congress over Indian Affairs may be of a plenary nature, but it is not absolute." US v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946), 329 U.S. 54. Since the exclusion of the Kansas Delawares from distribution under the act was "tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians," 430 U.S. 85-89, the exclusion does not offend the Due Process ...
An Arizona Supreme Court ruling that allows enforcement of a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy was part of a flurry of recent activity on the issue that has been in flux since the U.S ...
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v.
The Supreme Court confirmed the draft's authenticity the next day; at the same time, the Supreme Court's press release said that "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case". [103] [104] [105] In response to the leak, Roberts said, "The work of the Court will not be affected in ...