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 (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency ...
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 ...
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment.
Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0517-0. (Claims that it is a mistake to read the case as claiming a judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or cannot do under the Constitution.) Irons, Peter H. (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court. Penguin Books. pp. 104–107.
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]
[1] [2] In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States that gag orders, viewed as form of prior restraint are presumptively unconstitutional. [2] In Nebraska Press Ass'n the Supreme Court imposed a high burden on the government in order to sustain a prior restraint against the press. [2]
Case name Citation Summary Talbot v. Seeman: 5 U.S. 1 (1801) Marine salvage rights in time of war Marbury v. Madison: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) judicial review of laws enacted by the United States Congress: Stuart v. Laird: 5 U.S. 299 (1803) enforceability of rulings issued by judges who have since been removed from office Murray v. The Charming Betsey ...
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.