![]() Outcome: The court ruled in a 5-3 decision that financial deals between drug makers that hold patents and potential generic competitors could be challenged in court-but one case at a time.Īssociation for Molecular Pathology v. Actavis – decided ĭescription: The Court considers if brand-name drug companies can legally make payments to keep generic competitors’ products off the market for a limited time. Inter Tribal Council, the Court sided with the federal government, saying that Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement is pre-empted by the federal National Voter Registration Act.įederal Trade Commission v. Subject: Proof of citizenship, voter ID lawsĭescription: The court considers Arizona’s decision to require voters to furnish proof of citizenship as it relates to the federal National Voter Registration Act, in a question of state versus federal jurisdiction over voting qualifications. Outcome: The Court rules in a 7-1 vote against how University of Texas’ affirmative action policy was considered by a lower court, and sends the case back to the lower court, avoiding a sweeping decision on affirmative action. Decision could update or overturn parts of the historic 2003 Grutter v. University of Texas at Austin – decided ĭescription: The Supreme Court decides if a public university violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by considering race in its admissions process. Outcome: The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, sending the section that determines which states need extra attention about discrimination back to Congress to be re-written.įisher v. Outcome: Chief Justice John Roberts says in a 5-4 decision that the petitioners who sought the reaffirm California’s Proposition 8 didn’t have the legal ability to appeal a lower court decision.ĭescription: The Supreme Court decides if parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are still needed, which require states and local governments with a history of discrimination to get pre-clearance from the federal government before making any changes to voting laws. Subject: Proposition 8, same-sex marriageĭescription: The justices decide if the state of California can define marriage as the union of only a man and a woman using a resolution called Proposition 8, without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Outcome: Justice Anthony Kennedy says in a 5-4 decision that the federal law known as DOMA deprives the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Constitution. Subject: Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriageĭescription: Does the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for people of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state? Decision announced at the same time as the decision on California’s law that bars same-sex marriage. The Court left open the possibility of future lawsuits when a matter “touches and concerns” the United States with “sufficient force.” The Alien Tort Statute has been used in recent years to allow human-rights cases to come to court, brought by foreign nationals for acts committed outside the territory of the United States. Outcome: The Court decided that the Alien Tort Statute (law dating back to 1789), can’t be used in the Kiobel case to mount a lawsuit where all the events occurred in a foreign country. court system when alleged crimes happen outside the U.S.ĭescription: The Supreme Court considered a lawsuit from 12 Nigerians (who had left their country for the U.S.), and claimed three Dutch or British oil companies asked the Nigerian government to violently suppress resistance to oil exploration in that country. Subject: The Alien Tort Statute and the ability for foreign nationals to seek a legal remedy in the U.S. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Inc., - decided Since then, FISA and its secret court have been at the center of a firestorm about privacy, the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment. ![]() The court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Outcome: The court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with the federal government’s claims that the respondents’ fears were based on speculation. ![]() ![]() The respondents included journalists who feared their conversations with overseas sources were being monitored. Subject: The Court decides a challenge to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008ĭescription: In Clapper, the court considered if the respondents had standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision in the Jardines case, which ruled against the use of a police dog at a residence as a Fourth Amendment violation.Ĭlapper v. ![]() Outcome: Justice Elana Kagan wrote the opinion in a unanimous case in the Harris decision, which found that police could use the police dog in a vehicle search. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |