Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency to deliver ...
As Professor Alexander Bickel points out, however, Atherton Mills was "a case of quite conventional mootness, hardly apt as an illustration of judicial self-restraint in constitutional litigation". [15] Mootness, a justiciability doctrine, serves to ensure that a controversy is "live" and in need of judicial resolution. [16]
This is a partial chronological list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court during the Rehnquist Court, the tenure of Chief Justice William Rehnquist from September 26, 1986, through September 3, 2005. The cases are listed chronologically based on the date that the Supreme Court decided the case.
The court issued an order directing the parties to re-argue the case on September 9, 2009 with a discussion of whether it might be necessary to overrule Austin and/or McConnell v. FEC to decide the case. [23] The re-argument was one of the first attended by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had replaced Souter in the interim.
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court landmark [2] case in which the Court ruled on the applicability of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. [2]
"A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases". Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 6 (2): 263– 300. JSTOR 764779. Wiseman, A., & Wright, J. (2020). "Chevron, State Farm, and the Impact of Judicial Doctrine on Bureaucratic Policymaking." Perspectives on Politics
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark [2] [3] [4] United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, [5] [6] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most ...
The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial restraint and is intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also premised on the "delicacy" and the "finality" of judicial review of legislation for ...