Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Alexander Bickel, a law professor at Yale Law School, coined the term counter-majoritarian difficulty in his 1962 book, The Least Dangerous Branch.He used the term to describe the argument that judicial review is illegitimate because it allows unelected judges to overrule the lawmaking of elected representatives and thus to undermine the will of the majority.
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009), is a 5–4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that overruled the Court's decision in Michigan v. Jackson. [1] The case concerned the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during a police interrogation. In reversing Jackson, the Court said such a waiver was valid. [2]
In 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court declared the state's death penalty law unconstitutional due to the override. [ 3 ] Researchers who analyzed survey data from thousands of capital jurors found that "residual doubt" about the person's guilt was the most significant reason jurors voted for a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
There have been 16 decisions which have simultaneously overruled more than one earlier decision; of these, three have simultaneously overruled four decisions each: the statutory law regarding habeas corpus decision Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973), the constitutional law Eleventh Amendment (re: sovereign immunity) decision Edelman v.
Questions of constitutionality are considered a type of question of law, and thus appellate courts always review lower court decisions that address constitutional issues de novo. However, the term "standard of review" has an additional meaning in the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, which concerns how much deference the ...
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005), [2] was a landmark case in United States regulatory takings law whereby the Court expressly overruled precedent created in Agins v. City of Tiburon . [ 1 ] Agins held that a government regulation of private property effects a taking if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.