Search

Recent US supreme court decision in the matter of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization will have a tremendous effect on medical practice in upcoming years. Currently, there are many new therapeutic IBD treatments in the pipeline and most of them are presently under clinical trials.[7] Clinical trials are usually offered to patients who have severe disease, after failure of previous treatments. Current medical practice is to inform patients about the potential risk and emphasize the importance of strict birth control.[5] However, things can go wrong, and patients might experience unplanned pregnancies. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London (2005) authorized the use of eminent domain for economic redevelopment provided that there are sufficient spillover benefits to the public. This article examines the economic basis for this decision and tests the conclusions using cross-state data on “development takings” over the period 1998 to 2002. It also examines the political responses by states to limit such takings in the aftermath of Kelo. The results are consistent with the economic justification for eminent domain as a means of overcoming the holdout problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes a new cross-national thesis for judicial decision making. The judicial politicization theory posits that judges on highly politicized high courts will be more likely to decide cases using ideological and attitudinal factors than judges at less politicized courts. The theory holds that informal norms regarding judicial appointment by the executive are more important than the formal selection mechanism in determining whether a judiciary is highly or less politicized. The results show significant attitudinal judicial voting at each high court and strong support for the contention that judges on highly politicized courts are more likely to decide cases ideologically. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The focus of this analysis is whether a strategic perspective provides a useful approach that enhances an understanding of broad patterns of judicial decision making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The authors examine whether it is reasonable in the majority of cases for appeals court judges to modify their behavior when necessary to avoid reversal by the Supreme Court. This assessment utilizes statistical analyses and interviews from twenty-eight judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Based on a three-part argument, the authors conclude that a strategic perspective is not helpful in understanding the decision calculus of appeals court judges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While theoretical justifications predict that a judge's gender and race may influence judicial decisions, empirical support for these arguments has been mixed. However, recent increases in judicial diversity necessitate a reexamination of these earlier studies. Rather than examining individual judges on a single characteristic, such as gender or race alone, this research note argues that the intersection of individual characteristics may provide an alternative approach for evaluating the effects of diversity on the federal appellate bench. The results of cohort models examining the joint effects of race and gender suggest that minority female judges are more likely to support criminal defendants' claims when compared to their colleagues on the bench, even after controlling for other important factors. This suggests that our understanding of judicial behaviors may be assisted by the inclusion of how individual characteristics overlap rather than examining those characteristics alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many scholars of the Supreme Court and many justices assert the importance of the Federalist Papers. They provide important evidence of original meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, and there is evidence that there is an increase in citations to the Federalist Papers in Supreme Court opinions. While some may view this increased citation use as a positive development because it demonstrates reliance on legal authority in judicial decisions, we provide evidence that in a period marked by dissensus and controversy, the use of the Federalist Papers represents externally and internally oriented strategic attempts by the justices to add legitimacy to constitutional interpretation, and to sway colleagues. We use a combination of descriptive and multivariate techniques to examine Federalist citations from 1953 to 1995 to demonstrate our interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do newly appointed justices experience acclimation effects upon their ascent to the Supreme Court? We contend that acclimation is a process, as justices' conformation to the doctrine of stare decisis is partly a function of tenure length. We find that precedent conformance is inversely related to tenure, with newcomers following legal precedents at rates significantly greater than more tenured colleagues; however, justices slowly but surely surrender to relatively unfettered judicial power at the Supreme Court, as attitudes increasingly dominate decisionmaking. While votes adhering to precedent are more prevalent for newcomers, all justices are overwhelmingly influenced by their own ideologies, confirming the inability of the legal model to influence or explain this aspect of judicial behavior. Our results also indicate that the proclivity of prior research to specify an express period of acclimation may be flawed. Instead, acclimation is a dynamic process, ever evolving over justices' entire duration of service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some of the Supreme Court's most famous cases—from Roe v. Wade (1973) to Brown v. Board of Education (1954)—have been decided only after being held over and argued a second time. While few cases take this path, scholars have offered no systematic account for why the Court would ever take such a tack. We develop hypotheses about when reargument is most likely to occur, and test them on all formally decided cases between 1946 and 1985. More specifically, we focus on how justices' uncertainty about case outcomes affects the Court's decision to seek reargument. Our findings demonstrate that reargument is most likely to occur when multiple levels of uncertainty are present, even when we control for other factors that have been raised as explanations for this phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the manner in which attitudes regarding specific Supreme Court decisions influence subsequent levels of confidence in the court. Analysis of the impact of the 1989 `Webster' abortion decisions and `Texas v. Johnson,' the flag-burning edict released immediately prior to `Webster'; Information on the estimation of confidence in the Supreme Court; Comments about court decisions.

This article discusses the court decisions in the school plant field. During the three years now under review the most important research landmark is a comprehensive study of judicial decisions concerning public school property. Annually upwards of a hundred decisions of the higher courts are concerned with the public school plant. Among the phases highlighted are the acquisition and management of school sites; financing the construction of buildings; contracting for buildings, equipments and supplies; insurance; liability arising from the condition or operation of the plant; and the use of the plant for extraschool community purposes. Recapitulation of the findings is not practicable in this research, but some of their bearings upon the topics treated in this chapter will be mentioned at appropriate points.

The article discusses conflict and its resolution in the Supreme Court. Behavior of Supreme Court justices indicating conflict and its resolution constitutes a significant sector of activity that is called law in action. It is surprising that the subject has received little scholarly attention. The main reason for this, apparently, is that only a few persons are in a position directly to observe decision-making in the Courts--the justices themselves and to some extent their law clerks and a few others--and they are not inclined to write about it, at least not systematically. Conflict in the Supreme Court is inevitable as the justices attempt to fulfill their primary political role--the settlement of disputes brought before them. It is due largely to the kinds of cases that come to the Court, those for which legal guidelines are unclear and those which involve basic societal conflicts. Such cases make the justices' values salient in decision-making, and therefore value disparity is a major source of intracourt conflict. Another major source is disparity of conceptions of the basic judicial role. Other sources of conflict include the justices' personalities.

The article focuses on the issues concerning the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the District of Columbia (D.C.) v. Dick Anthony Heller case regarding individual's right to bear firearms for private use in 2009. It states that in 2006, six residents including Heller challenged the Firearms Control Regulation Act, which was passed in 1975, as a violation to the Second Amendment. It cites that the appellate court dismissed five of the complainants except for Heller.

The article reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on non-citizenship in relation to one of the court cases. On November 19, 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a rejection of an application for employment by a private employer because the applicant is an alien is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is interesting to note that in interpreting the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has traditionally held, and set forth by regulation, that discrimination on the basis of citizenship has the effect of discrimination on the basis of national origin and, therefore, a lawfully immigrated alien who is domiciled and residing in the United States may not be discriminated against on the basis of citizenship. At this time, the potential danger resulting from the decision of the Court can only be averted through an amendment to the Civil Rights Act which would add "alienage" as a prohibited form of discrimination.