US: Supreme Court Takes Eight Cases, but Doesn’t Act on Some Big Ones - PressFrom - US

USSupreme Court Takes Eight Cases, but Doesn’t Act on Some Big Ones

04:40  12 january  2019
04:40  12 january  2019 Source:

U.S. top court takes up politically charged electoral map disputes

U.S. top court takes up politically charged electoral map disputes U.S. top court takes up politically charged electoral map disputes

The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States.

The Supreme Court will consider only cases for which at least four of the nine justices vote to grant a “writ of certiorari,” a decision by the Supreme Court to In addition, the Supreme Court receives over 1,200 applications for various types of judicial relief or opinion each year that can be acted upon by a

Supreme Court Takes Eight Cases, but Doesn’t Act on Some Big Ones© Sarah Silbiger/The New York Times If the Supreme Court is to hear an unusually large number of pending petitions on significant issues, it will have to act soon.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court added eight cases to its docket on Friday, including ones on how gun laws apply to undocumented immigrants and whether the police may have blood drawn from unconscious motorists suspected of drunken driving.

The court took no action on an unusually large number of pending petitions on significant issues, including President Trump’s efforts to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation and to bar most transgender people from military service.

Supreme Court to take on partisan gerrymandering this year

Supreme Court to take on partisan gerrymandering this year The court will hear arguments over congressional maps in Maryland and North Carolina that lower courts have struck down.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power The UKSC can hear 'devolution issues', which include questions about whether a Bill or Act of Parliament, or any provision of a Bill or Act of Parliament, is within the legislative competence of the

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

Other petitions under consideration concern an Indiana abortion law, a New York City gun control ordinance, a New Jersey ruling barring government grants to repair churches and whether a federal civil rights law prohibits job discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

If the court is to hear any of those cases this term, it will have to act soon. If it does not grant review by next week, the court’s past practices indicate that any cases it does eventually agree to hear will not be argued until its next term starts in October.

The case concerning immigrants and guns involves Hamid M. Rehaif, who came to the United States from the United Arab Emirates to study at the Florida Institute of Technology on a student visa. He was dismissed for academic reasons after three semesters but stayed in the United States.

Olivia de Havilland's Lawsuit Over FX's 'Fued' Denied Review by Supreme Court

Olivia de Havilland's Lawsuit Over FX's 'Fued' Denied Review by Supreme Court The Supreme Court denied a review of a lawsuit by actress Olivia de Havilland, who sued FX Networks over its depiction of her in the Ryan Murphy series, "Feud: Bette and Joan." The high court on Monday rejected her petition to review the dismissal of her lawsuit, which had been allowed to proceed initially by a Los Angeles judge, before a California appeals court reversed that decision. de Havilliand was portrayed by Catherine Zeta-Jones in the limited series about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. She claimed the series put false words in her mouth, and depicted her in an unflattering light as a “vulgar gossip” and “hypocrite.

Start studying Supreme Court Cases . Learn vocabulary, terms and more with flashcards, games and other study tools. By extending the Court 's original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury's, Congress had exceeded it authority. And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution

Some Supreme Court law clerks who worked at the court when there was a prolonged vacancy recalled that business proceeded apace, without additional tension and only a The Supreme Court generally doesn ’ t like voting changes to take effect close to an election, though some of the liberal

About a year after he left school, Mr. Rehaif went to a shooting range, rented a gun and bought ammunition. Six days later, a worker at a hotel where was staying told the authorities that he had been acting suspiciously. When he was questioned by an F.B.I. agent, Mr. Rehaif admitted to visiting the firing range. He allowed a search of his room, which turned up the remaining ammunition.

Mr. Rehaif was charged with violating a federal law that makes it a crime for people “illegally or unlawfully in the United States” to possess “any firearm or ammunition.” Another provision of the law says that violations of it must be made knowingly. Mr. Rehaif was convicted and sentenced to a 18 months in prison.

The question in the case, Rehaif v. United States, No. 17-9560, was whether prosecutors had to prove not only that Mr. Rehaif knew he possessed a gun or ammunition, but also that he knew he was in the United States unlawfully.

Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments for the 1st time

Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments for the 1st time Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will rely on written briefs and transcripts to help the court decide cases after missing arguments for the first time in more than 25 years. 

The Supreme Court 's decision on same-sex marriage instantly will enter the pantheon of landmark Supreme Court cases , and for good reason. Denied citizenship to African American slaves. The photograph taken in the 1800s of slave Dred Scott was found in the historic courthouse in Thebes, Ill.

Ruling The Supreme Court ruled against James. The Court said that reasonable physical discipline at school doesn ' t violate the Constitution. The Court noted that all students surrender some privacy rights while at school: They must follow school rules and submit to school discipline. At one point

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed his conviction, ruling that a trial judge had properly instructed the jury that “the government is not required to prove that the defendant knew that he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Mr. Rehaif relied on a 2012 concurrence from Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who at the time was a federal appeals court judge in Denver. Judge Gorsuch wrote that logic and the rules of grammar required proof that every element of the crime in question had been committed knowingly. “It makes no sense,” he wrote, “to read the word ‘knowingly’ as so modest that it might blush in the face of the very first element only to regain its composure and reappear at the second.”

The case on drawing blood from motorists, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210, concerns Gerald P. Mitchell, a Wisconsin man arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. A police officer took him to a hospital, where he was slumped over and unresponsive. The officer instructed medical personnel to draw blood from Mr. Mitchell, and they found that his blood alcohol concentration was 0.22, which is above the legal limit for driving.

Government shutdown closes in on high court

Government shutdown closes in on high court The Supreme Court is about to feel the effects of the partial government shutdown. On Monday afternoon, as the shutdown entered its third work week, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said it's now aiming to keep paid operations going through Jan. 18, a week longer than its previous estimate. But to make that happen, some changes are being made. "In an effort to achieve this goal, courts have been asked to delay or defer non-mission critical expenses, such as new hires, non-case related travel, and certain contracts," the office said in a statement.

For one , expect to see the Supreme Court take up affirmative action again. On Monday, the court by 7-1 sent the University of Texas at Austin's plan back for review under stricter standards. Gay rights won Wednesday. Voting rights lost Tuesday. But in the Roberts era, big money tends to win every time.

On Thursday morning, the United States Supreme Court said it would accept eight new cases for its 2016 term, which starts next week. For now, it didn' t act on an appeal from the Washington Redskins football team about a trademark ruling. Among the cases accepted on the Court ’s Order list were a

It was Mr. Mitchell’s seventh offense for driving under the influence. He was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison, and he challenged his conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds.

A splintered Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected that argument, relying on a state law that presumes drivers have consented to blood tests and punishes them if they decline to cooperate by revoking their driver’s licenses. The law says unconscious motorists are “presumed not to have withdrawn consent” to having their blood drawn.

Twenty-eight states have similar laws, according to Mr. Mitchell’s petition seeking Supreme Court review, but some of them have been struck down after two recent Supreme Court decisions.

In 2013, the court ruled that a warrant is ordinarily needed before drawing blood in drunken-driving investigations. In 2016, the court added that “motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to submit to a blood test on pain of committing a criminal offense.” In Mr. Mitchell’s case, the penalty of losing a driver’s license is a civil one.

In urging the Supreme Court to deny review, lawyers for the state said Mr. Mitchell should not benefit because he “got so drunk that, after driving while under the influence, he passed out and became unconscious.”

Mr. Mitchell should not, the state’s brief said, receive “the windfall of avoiding the lawful civil choice, which other drunk drivers must face, of having their blood drawn or losing their license.”

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter: @adamliptak.

Ginsburg can stay on the Supreme Court and vote, no matter how sick or disabled she becomes.
With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continuing to recover from cancer surgery, whispers about whether she should step down have grown louder. But as a member of the Supreme Court with life tenure, Ginsburg can remain on the bench for as long as she desires, no matter how sick she becomes. Ginsburg had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two malignant nodules found in her left lung and has been recuperating at her home ever since. The procedure kept Ginsburg off the bench on Monday and Tuesday, marking the first time she missed oral arguments in her 25-year tenure on the Supreme Court.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!