Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Held that voters have standing to litigate when their Constitutional Right to vote in the United States is infringed. 7–2 Epperson v. Arkansas: 1968: In contrast to Poe, the court did recognize standing in a case for overturning an unenforced Arkansas state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. [3] 9–0 Flast v. Cohen: 1968
Court historians and other legal scholars consider each chief justice who presides over the Supreme Court of the United States to be the head of an era of the Court. [1] These lists are sorted chronologically by chief justice and include most major cases decided by the court.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), commonly known in U.S. administrative law as State Farm, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning regulations requiring passive restraints in cars.
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States case on the issue of standing under the Administrative Procedure Act.The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.
In another major standing case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court elaborated on the redressability requirement for standing. [47] The case involved a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior interpreting §7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The rule rendered §7 of the ESA ...
In asking the Supreme Court to pause the case, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said in a filing, "After the change in administration, EPA's acting administrator has determined that the ...
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), is a decision in which the United States Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried.
Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ("Horne I"); 576 U.S. 351 (2015) ("Horne II"), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.