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
Wolf principally argued that staredecisis justifies maintaining the doctrine. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that “it’s not the strongest staredecisis argument” in light of Supreme Courtdecisions characterizing the doctrine as a failure. The post Doctrinal “dinosaur” or staredecisis?
That not only amounts to a reversal of a precedent set earlier by the Court, but is an “alarming” step back in protecting juveniles, say Arthur Ago and Rochelle Swartz of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The court is fooling no one,”” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent.
This means that issues decided at the district or administrative court level can be binding on all other courts: district courts, administrative courts, appellate courts, and even the Supreme Court. District courtdecisions are not binding precedent because they are at the bottom.
By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
Written by Orji Agwu Uka, Senior Associate at Africa Law Practice (ALP)*. This is the fifth and final online symposium on Private International Law in Nigeria initially announced on this blog. Those pieces of advice and legal representations would have benefitted greatly from a comprehensive private international law treatise.
Its argument, inter alia , was that by virtue of Article 12 and 13 of their agreement, the Nigerian court had no jurisdiction in this case. GOVERNING LAW: The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA without regard to the principle of conflicts of any jurisdiction.”.
The decision overturns a 2018 ruling which held there is a fundamental right to abortion in Iowa. Planned Parenthood sued to challenge a 2020 law which requires a 24 hour waiting period before an abortion. After a lower court ruled the law was unconstitutional, Iowa appealed to the state supreme court.
Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed. Next up is Kelly v. United States.
It’s a little surprising the court let stand a federal courtdecision invalidating a state statute on constitutional grounds, but animal-rights groups defending that decision argued persuasively that state statutes are in a state of flux and it would be premature for the justices to take up the case now.
Cochran , the justices will decide whether federal district courts have the power to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the commission’s administrative law proceedings. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. The case is sufficiently similar to Axon Enterprise, Inc.
Andrus’ case cries out for intervention, and it is particularly vital that this Court act when necessary to protect against defiance of its precedents. The Court, however, denies certiorari. I would summarily reverse, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s failure to do so.” agree with the dissenting judges below.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the Supreme Court will consider one question: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Pro-life advocates argue laws like Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act , a 15-week abortion limit, are clearly constitutional. Law professor Helen Alvaré et al.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the potentially momentous abortion case concerning a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Against staredecisis. Many amici focus on the principle of staredecisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case. Legislative authority.
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