Ad
related to: supreme court public view search by defendant status chicago to washington dc
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
City of Chicago (2010); Justice James Clark McReynolds authored the decision in United States v. Miller, the only Supreme Court case that directly involved the Second Amendment until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. [10] Here are the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion: Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles ...
(2) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. January 17, 2025: Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas: 24-413
Bernstein, David E. Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform. Chapter 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. ISBN 0-226-04353-3; Cushman, Clare (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights: Milestone to Equality. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 19–20. ISBN 1-56802-614-5.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Multiple federal judges have delayed cases or released defendants charged with obstruction of an official proceeding pending the Supreme Court's ruling. [10] Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 16, 2024. [11] On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. [12]
The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 ruling, later sided with Tatel and ruled to protect the notes. [16] The following year, Tatel concurred in part and dissented in part in In Re: Bruce Lindsey , a case involving whether Special Counsel Ken Starr could seek grand jury testimony about Monica Lewinsky from deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey .
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."