Remove Court Rules Remove Legal Remove Stare Decisis
article thumbnail

US Supreme Court rules on life imprisonment for juveniles

JURIST

The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Jones v. Jones argued that under two of the court’s recent decisions, 2012’s Miller v. .” … Now, it seems, the Court is willing to overrule precedent without even acknowledging it is doing so, much less providing any special justification.

article thumbnail

Two death penalty cases and free speech at animal facilities

SCOTUSBlog

In June 2020, the Supreme Court issued a summary reversal – meaning it decided the case without merits briefing or oral argument – in Andrus v. In an unsigned opinion, the court ruled that Terence Andrus had demonstrated that his lawyer provided deficient performance at sentencing for failing to investigate or introduce mitigating evidence.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

A second look at a death-row prisoner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim

SCOTUSBlog

The Supreme Court instructed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to consider whether counsel’s inadequate performance had prejudiced Andrus – that is, whether but for counsel’s deficient performance, the mitigating evidence might have prompted at least one juror to opt for a sentence of life without parole rather than the death penalty.

article thumbnail

High Court Decision Called ‘Alarming Reversal’ in  Youth Justice

The Crime Report

The decision follows multiple previous precedents set by the Court over the past decade that sharply limited courts’ ability to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole, the lawyers wrote. The court is fooling no one,”” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent. In Miller v.

article thumbnail

Animal rights and the First Amendment, due process and a confession of error

SCOTUSBlog

Instead, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld “general jurisdiction” over Cooper on the ground that Cooper, by registering as a foreign corporation in Georgia, had consented to suit in Georgia as a condition of doing business in the state. Animal Legal Defense Fund. Animal Legal Defense Fund , 21-760. Next up is Kelly v.

Statute 108
article thumbnail

Dobbs, Obergefell, and “the critical moral question posed by abortion”

SCOTUSBlog

Yet instead of giving due legal effect to this difference, which Dobbs holds “sharply distinguishes” abortion from contraception, Roe and Casey expanded procreative liberty from Griswold ’s right to prevent pregnancy by contraception to the right to terminate it by abortion.

article thumbnail

Court on a Hot Tin Roof: Airing Out “the Stench” from the Oral Argument Over Abortion

JonathanTurley

Justices Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer insisted that overturning Roe in whole or in part would bring ruin upon the court by abandoning the principle of stare decisis , or the respect for precedent. The 1896 ruling of Plessy v. There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity.”.