Lists of United States Supreme Court cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in the American legal system and is the central institution that coordinates laws that affect the American society every day. The Supreme Court has issued verdicts on issues that involves the rights of citizens, including those of women, minorities, elderly, disabled, gays, young people, and many others. These changes have had both positive and adverse outcomes that ostensibly improve the status of the American people and defining the rights of lawbreakers

The landmark Supreme Court case Roe v Wade (1973) allowed women the right to make their own personal medical decisions regarding abortion, and pro-choice women were then protected by a Constitutional Right to Privacy. In the next three decades, Supreme Court decisions began to limit the ability for young women, and especially low-income women of color to make the decision to end a pregnancy. The Supreme Court was also called upon repeatedly to decide whether

making the creation any sort of bureaucratic agency not possible. In a 1928 Supreme Court case named “J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States” (Administrative Law book)”. The Supreme Court decided that elected officials cannot delegate power to an unelected source unless they provide an intelligible principle to regulate by. Even with the Supreme Court upholding the characteristics of the decision of the 1928 Supreme Court case, in an absolute, pure Democracy, a bureaucratic agency

Article Summary I selected the article “Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas” for review, as it applies to the state in which I reside. The article cites Texas Health and Safety Codes, based on a 1999 Texas Supreme Court ruling that states counselors do not have a duty to warn or protect. Having a duty to warn and protect is defined as protecting clients or others from perceived harm (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014). An example would be that a client tells their counselor in a confidential session

of the people as a whole. The United States is heading in the wrong direction when tackling this issue of campaign finance; therefore, it is exemplified in the Supreme Court decisions in

The Supreme Court, which does overrule its precedent from time to time, does not need to do a lengthy analysis of each precedent’s viability in every case. Rather, through its certiorari jurisdiction (certiorari – an order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court), it selects cases and issues that allow it to reconsider precedent on its own time. When the Court decides that a previous decision may be in jeopardy, it often asks the parties to brief whether precedent should be overruled

The vast majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions are written by an individual justice on the panel deciding that particular case, even on cases where the judgement was not unanimous (McCormick, 2015: 159). However, on rare occasions starting in the 1970’s the SCC started to use a different method of authorship where the decision is written instead “By the Court”. This method is generally reserved for important constitutional questions by a unanimous court and has only been used a

as prayer, public schools, as they are regulated by the state and federal government, are not able to create these regulations on their own.  This creates the argument of whether or not public display of religious practices such as prayer should be legalized by state as well as national school board agencies.  Although Prayer has many benefits, it is still a choice; Prayer is not forced, it’s an individual choice, and the First Amendment states freedom of religion.     It has been argued that prayer

The United States and Europe have seen a growing number of people and groups advocating hateful and discriminatory beliefs in recent years. How liberal democracies should or should not address this fact has been a source of contention between people who advocate for freedom of speech and expression above all, and those who advocate for free and equal citizenship to come first. Corey Brettschneider tries to tackle this issue of hate speech and the state’s role, or lack thereof, in limiting this type

In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the defendant in a case named Everson v Board of Education. In this case, the Majority opinion laid out an interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution for the first time in regards to how it should be applied. As such, it would set the precedence for the way that the Supreme Court would look at the First Amendment even until today. Although in this particular instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of