25

Under Article VI of the US Constitution, the federal constitution and valid federal laws are the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state are bound to apply them regardless of anything in the laws or constitution of any state.* If a state legislature passes a law banning same-sex marriage, a state court is required under the federal constitution to ...


21

This is roughly accurate, but there are nuances. The real US issue with teacher-led prayer is that a teacher's authority can make it effectively coercive, or seem so, even if this is not intended by the teacher. (And in the past it has often been so intended, by teachers and administrators who thought it was good for children to be required to engage in ...


12

No rights are absolute. In particular, Charter s. 1 specifies rights are "subject only to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Generally speaking, when rights are infringed the courts will consider it a justifiable infringement if it serves a substantial purpose while proportionate, ...


11

The "arbitrary or capricious" test is a very forgiving standard that asks little more than whether an agency's decision is supported by a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 (1974). Using the standard, a reviewing court will not ask ...


11

The agency must have provided "reasoned analysis" for rescinding its previous rule The Supreme Court in Motor Veh. Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Ins., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) held that (emphasis added): An agency changing its course by rescinding a rule is obligated to supply a reasoned analysis for the change beyond that which may be required when an ...


10

A US state could prevent its own courts from overturning laws for violations of the state constitution. But the supremacy clause in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the ...


6

Congress cannot be sued for enacting a law. Period. The courts do not have the power to punish Congress for passing a law, they cannot forbid Congress from passing a law, they have no say over what the wording of a law can be. Only Congress has the power to determine what laws they pass. The courts do, of course, have the power to interpret and even strike ...


6

They need to show that they have considered the evidence, followed law and procedure and have rendered a decision on that basis This is a good overview. With specific reference to the arbitrary and capricious test: In making this determination, the reviewing court will not find that the administrative body acted arbitrarily unless the agency failed to ...


6

As no draft decision/law on this has seemingly been published, we only have press coverage to go by, but a more recent one is that... B.C. has now indicated medical exemptions to the incoming vaccine card requirement may be allowed, but only in “extremely rare” cases. [...] When the measure was first announced last month, provincial health officer Dr. ...


6

Section 381.00316 is unconstitutional because it is an unjustifiable content-based restriction on speech, in violation of the First Amendment. The law is unconstitutional because private businesses and their owners have a First Amendment right to demand that their customers engage in speech as a condition of doing business. If you've watched Showtime at the ...


5

State governments, in general, have very broad legislative authority. Surely, a state legislature can pass a law prohibiting a private business or local government agency from requiring a vaccine passport, so long as it is not pre-empted by federal law or federal regulations. It is very unlikely to be unconstitutional under the federal constitution. ...


4

Pursuant to well-established law in the US, the person carrying the fetus (conventionally, the mother) has the right to an abortion. Doing so might be a breach of contract. Some jurisdictions flat out ban surrogacy contracts (Arizona, D.C), perhaps even penalizes (Michigan, NY), or declares void (Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska). In California, ...


3

The US Constitution does not require that any particular law be on the books, so repealing a law (like the DOMA) can never be unconstitutional as a matter of substance. I suppose there could be an argument that a rep[al did not follow procedure set out in the constitution, for example that no quorum was present for the repeal vote. I don't know of any case ...


3

It would seem that the law involved is probably Section 58-17-4096 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 58. This is part of the General Railroad Law of SC (GRL), and apparently was last revised in 1996. Section 58-17-4096 reads, in full: (A) It is unlawful, without proper authority, for a person to trespass upon railroad tracks. (B) A person who ...


3

Businesses are not required to do what the card says, they are required to do what the card-holder says, to the extend that what the card holder says relates to giving or denying consent to be vaccinated. Since they don't vaccinate people who are unconscious, consent will always be directly obtained from the patient and the card has absolutely no effect. ...


3

President Biden's most far-reaching mandates use four mechanisms: Federal employees must be vaccinated, contractors to the Federal government must impose mandates on their employees, businesses with more than 100 employees must impose mandates under an order (not yet written) from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to insure workplace safety, ...


3

The answer is they are quite different. The SCOTUS found almost 100 years ago that the Several States have the power to require vaccinations. This is one of the "reserved powers" under the constitution. The Texas Heartbeat law creates a regulation on doctors (similar) and a civil cause of action (very different). However, the biggest ...


2

Can a state declare: "any violence against insert a group here shall not be prosecuted," which is pretty much what Nazis and Communists did, and then claim non-involvement in the violence that would ensue? This would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. https://www.justice.gov/crt/guidance-regarding-use-race-federal-law-enforcement-...


2

Try worldcat.org. It knows the catalog of most libraries in the world. You look up a book or periodical and enter your location. I’m in CA and I found four libraries that have The Listener within 25 miles of me. Wikipedia references a 1976 issue for one of the items.


2

Any number of people can sue Alice, but she'll only have to pay at most once. From Sec. 171.208(c) of the law: (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under ...


2

Biden cannot write legislation, he can only enforce legislation previously enacted by Congress. Therefore, his primary challenge is finding a legal path that enables his branch of government to write a rule. The governors, in response to such a rule, would then have a specific target to aim their legal arguments at. During the Trump administration, there ...


1

if Congress passes a law that explicitly allows gay marriage, could there be a lawsuit with any amount of success over that law? Typically, a statute that codifies case law cannot be successfully attacked as unconstitutional for reasons different than the reasons that a court could overrule its past precedents. Similarly, past case law rules that have been ...


1

Is it therefore defamation to claim that those who violate it are "breaking the law"? AFAIK it's not a criminal statute. Is it defamation to claim that those who violate it are "committing a crime"? No. These assertions rather constitute statements of opinion and therefore are not actionable. For it to constitute a possibly actionable ...


1

For Elective Dictatorship you could try visiting, or if that's not feasible, ordering a copy from the British Library. And there's also the Bodleian Library. Details on how to join are here if you're not already a member.


1

A decision under Article 26 that legislation is constitutional means that the constitutionality of that specific piece of legislation cannot be considered again. As to whether the Supreme Court is bound by precedent set by previous Article 26 decisions (their Ratio decidendi) is more open to question. In Re The Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999 [...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible