Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
When federal or state laws are challenged in the United States court system for their constitutionality, they may be either challenged based on a facial challenge, challenging the whole of the law or provision and all applications of it, or may be through an as-applied challenge for a specific case or set of circumstances.
Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test is applied to constitutional challenges of both federal law and state law (via the Fourteenth Amendment).This test also applies to both legislative and executive action, whether those actions be of a substantive or procedural nature.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax.The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state.
Substantive law is the set of laws that governs how members of a society are to behave. [1] It is contrasted with procedural law , which is the set of procedures for making, administering, and enforcing substantive law. [ 1 ]
The case before the U.S. Supreme Court, pursued by the conservative legal group Liberty Justice Center, involved only a challenge to the campaign-finance requirements of the Alaska measure.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. [1]