Search

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that litigants could sue federal officials for monetary damages in their individual capacities under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). In the case Tanzin v. Tanvir, Pakistani permanent resident Muhammad Tanvir and three others filed a lawsuit when they were forced to serve as informants within their American Muslim communities in violation of their Muslim faith.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) would prohibit a case filed against Germany for taking Jewish art dealers' property if the dealers were German nations. In the case Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the heirs of a consortium of Jewish art dealers filed a lawsuit against Germany over the 1935 sale of a collection of medieval art and artifacts called the Welfenschatz.

The article presents a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury unanimity requirement as established in Ramos v. Louisiana is not applied retroactively. In the case Edwards v. Vannoy, teenager filed for federal habeas relief after being sentenced by a Louisiana jury for the crimes of armed robbery, rape and kidnapping to life imprisonment without parole.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the rulings of a district court and the Fifth Circuit, claiming that warrantless searches and seizures of homes exceed the authority of the police in community caretaking duties. In the case Caniglia v. Strom, police officers searched the home of plaintiff Edward Caniglia without a warrant and seized two of his firearms.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is considered seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In the case Torres v. Madrid, Roxanne Torres filed excessive force against two police officers who shot her at the back twice. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the use of force constituted a seizure.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare. In the case California v. Texas, the plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate and the shared responsibility provision (SRP). Also cited is the case National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) v. Sebelius.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an award of nominal damages can redress a completed injury, thus, reversing the ruling of a district court and the Eleventh Circuit. In the case Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, students Chicke Uzuegbubam and Joseph Bradford filed a case against officials of Georgia Gwinnett College enforcing speech policies to seek monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The article discusses various aspects of the relationship between the Solicitor General of the U.S. and America's Supreme Court (Supreme Court), and it mentions the Supreme Court's shadow docket which consists of the judicial orders and summary decisions that are issued without full briefing and oral argument procedures. The statutes, case law, and rules involving the most common forms of emergency and extraordinary relief in the Supreme Court are assessed, along with appellate litigation.

The article discusses the issue of rights in U.S. Supreme Court cases during its 2017 term, including in the U.S. Supreme Court case "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." The impact that constitutional law has on the Supreme Court's framework in determining case judgments is discussed.

The article discusses the challenges to democratic integrity arising from U.S. Supreme Court judgments on voting rights and campaign financing. It mentions government actions to interfere in these actions, the lack of protection of political participation in constitutional law, and suggests possible approaches for achieving more consistent decisions.

The article discusses the virtues of heterogeneity in relation to the U.S. Constitution and various judgments by America's Supreme Court (Court), and it mentions how the Court has explained the purposes behind race-conscious integration in lower- and higher-education litigation matters. A racial diversity rationale is examined, along with the U.S. Constitution's First and Sixth Amendments. School desegregation lawsuits such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka are assessed.

The Supreme Court has rendered two lines of decisions about the remedies available for a violation of the Takings Clause. One line holds that courts have no authority to enter anticipatory decrees in takings cases if the claimant can obtain compensation elsewhere. The other line, which includes three of the Court's most recent takings cases, results in the entry of an anticipatory decree about takings liability. This Essay argues that the second line is the correct one. Courts should be allowed to enter declaratory or other anticipatory judgments about takings liability, as long as they respect the limited nature of the right created by the Takings Clause and do not usurp the limited waivers of sovereign immunity for actions to recover compensation from the government. Anticipatory litigation should not be routine. In ordinary condemnation cases and in most regulatory takings cases that turn on the particular facts presented, the action seeking compensation should provide complete and adequate relief. But where remitting property owners to an action for compensation will result in an incomplete, impractical, or inefficient outcome, anticipatory relief about whether a taking has occurred is appropriate and should be permissible. The Essay argues that recognizing the appropriate role for anticipatory remedies under the Takings Clause would help reduce the many pitfalls of litigating takings claims, and provide more consistent and effective enforcement of this constitutional right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the procedural and historical aspects of the practice of revising U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) opinions, focusing on the concept of (non)finality in regards to judgments issued by the USSC in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas which deals with the constitutionality of a Texas state law which criminalized sodomy. Other topics include concurring opinions, formal errors in court opinions, and the "United States Reports" legal case digests. America's federal laws are assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc. which deals with a legal standing doctrine in America and the nation's civil procedure rules. According to the article, constitutional standing requirements in America derive from a limitation of the judicial power to resolve cases and controversies under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A "legal interest" standing test is also examined.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Harris v. Quinn which deals with a prohibition against the assessment of a fair-share fee against in-home caregivers under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. American freedom of speech rights and the legal aspects of compelled subsidization are mentioned. The 1977 USSC case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which deals with public-sector union dues and collective bargaining units, is also examined.