background preloader


Facebook Twitter

Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia. Worcester v.

Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional. The opinion is most famous for its dicta, which laid out the relationship between tribes and the state and federal governments, stating that the federal government was the sole authority to deal with Indian nations. It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States. Ruling[edit] Chief Justice John Marshall laid out in this opinion that the relationship between the Indian Nations and the United States is that of nations.

Marshall's language in Worcester may have been motivated by his regret that his earlier opinions in Fletcher and Johnson had been used as a justification for Georgia's actions. Scott v. Sandford. Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Screenshot of the Google search results for "Miserable Failure" in March 2007 Screenshot of Yahoo!

Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election

Search results for "Miserable Failure" in December 2008.

Citizen united case

Heffernan v. City of Paterson. A government employee who is demoted because of perceived involvement in protected political activity is entitled to challenge his demotion under the First Amendment even if the demotion was based on a factual mistake.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for the 6-2 majority. The Court held that, although there was no First Amendment case that specifically addressed this issue, there was at least one precedential case in which the employer’s motive was what determined whether the action violated the employee’s First Amendment rights. Therefore, when an employer demotes an employee out of a desire the prevent or punish the employee for engaging in protected speech, that action violates the First Amendment, even if the employer made a factual mistake and no protected speech occurred. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Constitution does not provide a cause of action when a plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not violated. Miller v. California. Miller v.

Miller v. California

California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of “utterly without socially redeeming value” to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. " It is now referred to as the Three-prong standard or the Miller test. Background[edit] In 1971, Marvin Miller, an owner/operator of a California mail-order business specializing in pornographic films and books, sent out a brochure advertising for books and a film that graphically depicted sexual activity between men and women. Ismaélisme. Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.


L'ismaélisme, ou ismâ`îlisme est un courant minoritaire de l'islam chiite. Ses membres sont appelés ismaéliens, ismâ`îliens (arabe اسماعيلي ismā`īlī). Son nom provient d'Ismaïl ben Jafar.

Professeur Daniel Rosen (2016-chuo)

The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The Lifeboat Case) - Justice with Michael Sandel. 14 86 p86b. Marbury v. Madison. Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison (Marbury contre Madison) est un arrêt de la Cour suprême des États-Unis, (arrêt 5 U.S. 137) rendu le . C’est à bien des égards le plus important des arrêts rendus par la cour, non pour l’importance de l’affaire jugée, qui est mineure, mais pour les principes qu’il établit. La cour affirme la capacité, pour les tribunaux et en particulier pour elle-même, de juger de la conformité des lois à la constitution et d’écarter, en ne les appliquant pas, celles qui y contreviendraient. Ce principe donne à la cour son pouvoir le plus important, et fait d’elle la première cour constitutionnelle de l’histoire. Le contexte politique et les faits[modifier | modifier le code] John Marshall est alors secrétaire d’État, depuis juin 1800. William Marbury est un riche financier, très lié au parti fédéraliste. L’arrêt[modifier | modifier le code] L’arrêt est rendu par une cour unanime, et l’opinion de la cour est rédigée par John Marshall.

Lawrence v. Texas. Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly.

Lawrence v. Texas

The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.[1] Background[edit] Legal punishments for sodomy often included heavy fines and/or life prison sentences, with some states, beginning with Illinois in 1827, denying other rights, such as suffrage, to anyone convicted of the crime of sodomy.[2] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several states imposed various eugenics laws against anyone deemed to be a "sexual pervert". [citation needed] As late as 1970, Connecticut denied a driver's license to a man for being an "admitted homosexual".[3]

Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Syllabus Opinion (Anthony M.

Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Kennedy) Dissent (Antonin Scalia) Dissent (John G. Roberts, Jr.) Dissent (Clarence Thomas) Dissent (Samuel A. Alito, Jr.) NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v.

Syllabus. Bush v. Gore. Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Bush v. Gore

L'Arrêt Bush v. Gore, rendu par la Cour suprême des États-Unis le , met un terme aux recours et aux contestations consécutifs à l'élection présidentielle américaine de 2000 et aux recomptages des voix en Floride.

Supreme Court case - Dan Rose

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Authors Guild v.

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Google is a copyright case litigated in the United States. It centers on the allegations by the Authors Guild, and previously by the Association of American Publishers, that Google infringed their copyrights in developing its Google Book Search database. In late 2013, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin (sitting by designation) dismissed the lawsuit, and affirmed that the Google Books program meets all legal requirements for "fair use," [1] in what Publishers Weekly called a "ringing endorsement" of Google.[2] The Authors Guild appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit, in New York, which held oral arguments in late 2014. On October 16, 2015, the Second Circuit "rejected infringement claims from the Authors Guild and several individual writers, and found that the project provides a public service without violating intellectual property law Criticism[edit]