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 post Justice Elena Kagan Tells It Like It Is When It Comes To StareDecisis And The Politicization Of The Supreme Court appeared first on Above the Law. She wants to be an optimist, but this Court might not let her.
“Repudiating Roe (Part II): The Pernicious Doctrine of StareDecisis.” ” Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has this essay online at Public Discourse.
“Justice Kagan’s Unusual and Dubious Approach to ‘Reliance’ Interests Relating to StareDecisis”: Law professor Vikram David Amar has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.
“The Truth About StareDecisis: Justice Kavanaugh presented a view of precedent that centers on republican self-government.” ” Andy Smarick has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
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 Court decisions characterizing the doctrine as a failure. The post Doctrinal “dinosaur” or staredecisis?
The court found that the Chevron deference conflicts with the APA, which states that “the reviewing court” is to “decide all relevant questions of law.” .” In reaching this conclusion, the court analyzed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), legislation which determines the role of courts.
Staredecisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to previous judgments, i.e., precedent, when resolving a case with comparable facts. the Federal Circuit applied staredecisis to a prior validity ruling involving a different patent and a different accused infringer.
Latty Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Innovation Policy at Duke Law In a flurry of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has continued its skepticism of administrative agencies. Consider first staredecisis and the Court’s overruling of Chevron deference (i.e.
Staredecisis only matters when it’s convenient for this version of the high court. The post You Can Kiss Precedent Goodbye Thanks To The Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority appeared first on Above the Law.
Thing is, these days law and the decisions courts hand down are very much like that. The kicker is that unlike parents (who, hopefully, are on the same page and the kid realizes that it's unlikely dad will overrule mom), it is critical that courts make the same rulings over and over so that people know how law will be applied.
“A Century-Long ‘Reign of Error’ for a Supreme Court Typo; A sweeping statement in a 1928 opinion about property rights was revised soon after it was issued; But the error lived on”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times about a forthcoming (..)
A recent Law360 guest article rightly questions the pretextual pseudo-originalism that permits ideology to masquerade as judicial philosophy, but the cure would kill the patient because directness, simplicity and humanness are achievable without renouncing form or sacrificing staredecisis, says Vanessa Kubota at the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Marisa Wright is a US National Correspondent for JURIST, and a 2L at Harvard Law School. . Instead, it refers more broadly to any individual or body that possesses some part of the power to make laws within a state — what the Court referred to as the ‘legislative power.’” Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015).
When a trial judge rules that a law is unconstitutional, who is bound by that decision? In R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, the SCC has made it crystal clear: these declarations are.
Talevski , to be argued Tuesday, returns the court to the question of when federal law is subject to private enforcement. 1983 — which allows private suits for state and local deprivations of rights secured by federal law—to enforce federal statutes enacted under Congress’ spending clause power.
The doctrine stems from the common-law principle that one who sells property to another generally should not be able to undermine the value of the property by later challenging the rights the seller conveyed in the first place. A possible middle ground. But a middle ground exists. The court could maintain the doctrine but limit its scope.
.” Even if the court had “doubts” about that rule, they should have provided “special justification” before overruling Miller and Montgomery , which they failed to do: How low this Court’s respect for staredecisis has sunk. … For most, the answer is yes.
The court also clarified that the previous judgement was per incuriam (bad in law) as it contradicted previous larger bench judgements and hence was not a precedent. The court emphasized the paramount importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution but also stressed the need for adherence to the rule of law.
Smith , a 1990 decision holding that the free exercise clause does not provide a right to religious exemptions from general laws, or (2) sharply limit the impact of Smith by interpreting it as guaranteeing a “most favored nation” status for religious exemption claims.
In the final step, she looks into the written law. She uses the interpretation and application of law from the written text and observes the limits of her authority. Jackson specified that she does not interpret the law from her own understanding but tries to interpret it according to its intended purpose.
” The court’s second example concerned a change in the law. If a previously valid patent becomes invalid due to a change in the law, “no principle of consistency prevents the assignor from saying so.”. In carving out this limitation, Kagan cited Mark Lemley’s influential article, “ Rethinking Assignor Estoppel.”
In my property law course, I spend a good bit of time walking through post-conveyance rights and obligations. These ideas of staredecisis and silent reenactment are part of a major ongoing debate within the Court over its role in changing its own prior precedent. = = = =. by Dennis Crouch. Minerva Surgical Inc. Hologic Inc.
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. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have banned life in prison without parole for children under state law.
Federal law bars employers from discriminating against workers for practicing their religion unless the employer can show that the worker’s religious practice cannot “reasonably” be accommodated without “undue hardship.” That case law, Prelogar contended, “provides meaningful protection to religious observants.”
Another important feature of collateral estoppel is that it applies to both issues of fact and law. Although some courts have disagreed on this point, precedent is only binding for questions of law. In my view, Judge Alsup’s conclusion is wrong on the merits. Uniloc v. .” ” Id.
In the past, both the USPTO and patent attorneys have largely ignored the larger scope of administrative law, but in recent years USPTO operations have been under tighter control from the White House, and courts have increasingly asked whether the agency is following the rules. ” 5 U.S.C. §
He contends that “a clear statute does not stand on the same footing as an invalid regulation purporting to implement it” because “[t]he statute is law; the regulation is not.” In particular, George points to House and Senate committee reports that endorse case law from the U.S.
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.
The post Nothing Is A Better Distraction From A Nakedly Political Court Than A Totally Important Game Of Whodunit appeared first on Above the Law. Then it’s hockey and we start punching.'.
The point is only that the case is protected by the same principles of a staredecisis as other cases, which affords protection to precedent but does not make such cases inviolate. There is nothing disingenuous in saying that a case is not super-precedent but still might not be overturned.
The Supreme Court directly revisited the rule in Kimble, but ultimately chose to uphold the rule based on staredecisis. Insall reinforces a few principles: Courts will afford great deference to arbitrators’ contract interpretations, even when they implicate patent law issues.
When it comes to antitrust laws and their impact on American sports leagues, baseball is in a verifiable league of its own. 10] One of the oldest and most periodically contested exemptions to the antitrust laws is one that is solely held by the sport of baseball. 11] Despite the subsequent expansion of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v.
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.”. Third, some Nigerian judges confuse choice of court with choice of law. ARTICLE 13.
The elimination of constitutional staredecisis would represent an explicit endorsement of the idea that the Constitution is nothing more than what five justices say it is.” - Former Associate Justice Lewis Powell. The post Where Were You When StareDecisis Died? appeared first on Above the Law.
Wade as “an infidelity,” Thomas dismissed the reliance on the principle of staredecisis , or the respect for precedent. Thomas told an audience that “I always say that when someone uses staredecisis that means they’re out of arguments. That was one of the central arguments in favor of preserving Roe.
The Supreme Court in Bilski addressed this issue to some degree in the context of the non-statutory categorical bars of abstract ideas; laws of nature and natural phenomenon. And, in any case, these exceptions have defined the reach of the statute as a matter of statutory staredecisis going back 150 years. Bilski v.
The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law. Paul Clement argues for Loper Bright Enterprises.
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. The decision overturns a 2018 ruling which held there is a fundamental right to abortion in Iowa.
Staredecisis? appeared first on Above the Law. * Here's a map showing the legality of abortion, state by state. [ The Guardian ]. I hardly knew her! [ A matter of judgment: Louisiana judge temporarily prevents abortion ban from kicking in. States scramble to prevent the 2nd Amendment from being an absolute right. [
Share On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether federal trademark law applies to trademark infringement that takes place outside the United States. The question for the court is whether the law reaches infringing conduct outside the United States. It can first claim that the Congress intended to apply the law globally.
The first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing and that’s the issue of staredecisis. You begin with the touchstone of staredecisis and the preference for preserving precedent. pressed him on whether Roe is “settled law,” Alito responded again by stating the obvious: “Roe v.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast , and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. The post Former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar Headed Back To Harvard Law appeared first on Above the Law. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her.
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