Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1]
These headlines from the Oregon Daily Journal, dated February 20, 1912, announce the Supreme Court's decision in Pacific States. The justices rendered their decision on February 19, 1912. [ 1 ] Chief Justice Edward Douglass White delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, ruling that the case presented a political question that fell outside ...
A May 2021 decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court nullified a voter-passed initiative that permitted medical marijuana in the state, with the 6–3 majority citing a fundamental flaw in the state's constitutional process that was viewed by media as effectively banning future use of indirect initiatives in the amendment process, barring a ...
The U.S. Supreme Court, with an appalling ruling last week, made clear that this is no time for shrinking. In a blatant example of political activism, the court upended the clear intent of the ...
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4 ...
The Supreme Court's 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning limited the ability of the president to make recess appointments (including appointments to the Supreme Court); the court ruled that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session or in recess. Writing for the court, Justice Breyer stated, "We hold that, for ...
(The Center Square) – A unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court may pave the way for challenges to a federal deportation plan under the incoming Trump administration to be defeated. The ...
On February 1, 1977, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that Massachusetts General Laws ch. 55 § 8 was constitutionally applied because of a failure to find a material effect on the corporations' business interests. [14] The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. [15]