2. The United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit ruled the “Act” violates the Constitution by denying health benefits to same-sex spouses. 3. Since 2010, courts reviewing the “Act” have found it unconstitutional even on a basic level of interpretation of the law. 4.
The Supreme Court ended up ruling that Phelps and his protesters were cleared and covered by the first amendment right (“Snyder vs. Phelps”). The Supreme Court’s decision was wrong because they should not be protected by the first amendment, the time, place and manner of their protest was inappropriate, Fred Phelps and Westboro violates Kant’s reversibility criterion. The first reason why Supreme Court was wrong is because Fred Phelps broke the first amendment. According to dictionary.com, the first amendment to the U.S. constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition. However United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to speak is not equal at all times and in all
When The Boy Scouts of America caught hear of this, it was immediately taken to court. Opening in 1992,the court 1st went with Dale’s appeal stating that the Boy Scouts had violated the sexual basis law of Pennsylvania. Later this would be overturned because the Boy Scouts of America’s First Amendment right of expressive association clearly saying, "The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA."
Case Citation: Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (Sup Crt, 2005) Parties: John D. Ashcroft, Plaintiffs The Free Speech Coalition ET AL., Defendant Facts: A provision in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) (18USCS 2252(a)) was designed to prohibit the possession or distribution of ‘child pornography’. Within this Act was a section 18 USCS 2256(8)(B), which included images appearing to show minors engaging in sexual activity. The section, as defined, implied even images of a ‘virtual’ nature or adults dressed to look like children. Procedural History: Various plaintiffs--including a trade association for the adult-entertainment industry, the publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle,
Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible. DISPOSITION: - Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz. J.Black filed a dissenting opinion. J. Marshall didn't participate in the vote. J.Stewart wrote "one who shuts the door behind him, pays tikes, he is surely entitled to assume that the words he says into the mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first endeavor to address an extensive variety of biased practices since the US Supreme Court proclaimed the Reconstruction-period Civil Rights Act of 1875 illegal. The prior Act was focused around the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 1 and 5 which abridges that all persons merit level with assurance of the laws; and the Congress should have force to implement, by fitting enactment, the procurements of this article (Deveaux, 2013). Cases prior to this case found that the Congress fail to offer the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to implement social liberties enactment against business and people, and because of this circumstance, private organizations are permitted to prohibit African-American people from access to open offices and different organizations. The choice in Civil Rights Cases seemed to strip the Legislative limb of a method for tending to disparities. In 1964, Congress attempted an alternate strategy, composition hostile to separation enactment that connected to non-government substances by summoning its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The Supreme court decision included, “ Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Ultimately, this case highlighted the power of the Supreme Court to deviate from the free exercise clause in cases of religious acts that are socially unacceptable or justifies multiple marriages ( Reynolds vs. United States). Lastly, political institutions that limit the impact of Supreme Court decisions include the fact that Constitutional Amendments can be passed at any time to overturn the decision of the Supreme court. This specific power is safeguarded under the Supremacy clause, which designates the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” and a doctrine that can be utilized in times of conflict in the law. Lastly, appellate jurisdiction limits Supreme Court decisions, as the Supreme court has the jurisdiction to hear cases from lower courts and change the outcomes of those decisions if
They had violated statutes 53-22 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev). 55-22 made the use of any drug, medical article, or instrument to prevent conception a crime punishable by fine or jail. The latter held anyone who “assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense” as liable as the principal offender. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. The case Poe v. Ullman (1961) dealing with the same statute, had been brought before the Court, but they refused to hear the case because no one had been charged with a crime.
As soon as it was passed into law a multitude of appeals were lodged against it claiming it was unconstitutional, although to begin with proposition 8 was upheld by the courts as constitutional, for example Strauss v. Horton, eventually the Californian 9th circuit Court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the lead judge in the case, released a statement saying "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex
Plyler v. Doe is a revision to the Texas education law to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal immigrants, together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child. The Supreme Court decided to deny this revision, their reasoning was that illegal immigrants and their children, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. By denying the children’s rights to education the state was being unconstitutional. Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law (Plyler v. Doe,