This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The 1st Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In each case before the Court, the reviewing courts applied Chevron’s framework to resolve in favor of the Government challenges by petitioners to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires certain fishing vessels to pay for federal monitoring staff on their boats.
Groff assures the court that it can overturn Hardison without worrying about staredecisis – the idea that courts should not overrule their prior cases unless there is a compelling reason to do so – because the Supreme Court in Hardison was not interpreting Title VII at all.
Against staredecisis. Many amici focus on the principle of staredecisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case. Americans United for Life argues that “ Roe and Casey contradict the staredecisis values of consistency, dependability, and predictability and are entitled to minimal staredecisis respect.”
demanded that Kavanaugh promise to respect staredecisis on cases like Roe, but then called for overturning cases like Citizens United v. The Constitution invests the president with the power to nominate new justices because he (with the Vice President) are the only nationally elected officials in our government.
When Berkeley Law School Dean and constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky taught Criminal Procedure in the Fall of 2019, he became frustrated when he realized many of the cases that were the subject of his lectures ended with the police winning and the rights of suspects losing. Or does staredecisis make it stuck as a precedent?
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content