20
See section II B of the opinion. On page 13:
On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. The commissioner stated:
“I would also like ...
15
It's complicated.
Rule 53 states
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.
This is applicable not just to the Supreme Court, but to all federal courts. Rule 53 applies to ...
11
If the Supreme Court is the final authority
The Supreme court is not the final authority. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort, but that does not prevent its case law from possibly being superseded or invalidated by constitutional amendments or the enactment of legislation.
Wouldn't past and future courts be of equal authority
No. Whether in ...
10
The general rule is that a governmental institution cannot bind future versions of itself. Thus a legislature can pass a law, but a later session of that same legislature can amend or repeal it, and the legislature cannot make it unamedable. Similarly, a President can issue an executive order, but later that same President, or a different one, can cancel or ...
9
Short Answer
Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.
Explanation
Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This allows the court[s] to interpret ...
9
I will only address this part of the question:
Who would be able to authoritatively decide the constitutionality of such a question, with all Supreme Court justices having clear conflict of interest on the matter?
The Supreme Court could still hear such a case, as the justices make their own decisions about when to recuse themselves. In particular, they ...
8
The eighth amendment, by prohibiting excessive bail, implies that pretrial detention is constitutional in at least some circumstances:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Some may be surprised to learn that this was not at all innovative. There is a virtually identical clause in ...
8
SCOTUS Justice Samuel Chase was impeached though not convicted by the Senate. Here is a list of federal judges investigated for impeachment, and a list of federal officials impeached. The first federal judge to be removed from office was John Pickering, and the most recent is Thomas Porteous. Only Congress has the power to impeach: SCOTUS cannot review an ...
7
If the Senate took the extreme measure of attempting to abolish the Supreme Court, there's nothing in the Constitution that requires them to confirm any of the President's nominees. However, attempting to dismantle one of the 3 branches would be nothing short of a coup d'etat.
The president has some options here:
He [the President] may, on extraordinary ...
7
Short answer:
Yes.
There are some matters in the exclusive original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, which consists of suits between U.S. states and/or foreign states with each other and suits involving diplomats. On average, one or two such suits are filed each year.
The original jurisdiction in these cases is created by Article III of the ...
6
As far as I know, no single president has ever been in office long enough to see all supreme court judges retire, resign or die. So waiving his right to appoint new judges would just achieve two things:
He would have less judges in his favor than if he'd just appoint a new one.
He would help the next president, possibly from the other party, who could then ...
6
Civil Procedure In Interstate Disputes
Legal disputes between U.S. states (or between the United States government and a U.S. state, or both) are resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court and in these disputes, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.* This means that the U.S. Supreme Court functions as a trial court, rather than as an appellate court in ...
5
First off, a court in the United States does not care if the federal law was good policy or bad policy. Courts do not make those decisions. A court cannot strike down a law for being a stupid idea; it can only strike down the law for violating a more fundamental law (i.e. state and federal constitutions, including striking down state laws for going against ...
5
A blog post tracked this to Fiore v. White, a 1999 case in which Breyer wrote an opinion certifying a question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, after which SCOTUS reversed the Third Circuit per curiam. The Third Circuit opinion in question was written by Circuit Judge Samuel Alito.
5
What is stopping me from going and finding a poor college student, marrying them for the tax incentives (and them me for the health insurance), and breaking it off when it is no longer financially or emotionally convenient?
Nothing, go for it.
Breaking it off, i.e. getting a divorce, leaves questions of who gets what assets - you will need to consult local ...
5
The relevant statute, 28 USC 455 simply states what shall be, and does not suggest that the law could be enforced by any particular means. There have been cases where there was a suggestion of a hint of impropriety at SCOTUS and yet things proceeded. In Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 Rehnquist did not recuse himself despite being a White House lawyer and having ...
5
To elaborate on @user6726's answer, 28 U.S.C. § 445 states when Federal Judges shall recuse themselves. This would include all Federal Court Judges from the U.S. Supreme Court (highest) to all Federal District Courts (lowest). All other states have statutes or judicial rules that require judges to recuse themselves in similar circumstances. The test for ...
5
The standard is this, from Teague v. Lane:
If a case announces a “new rule,” an opinion by Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor said, the new rule will apply to all cases pending on direct
review; but in most cases it will not apply to cases already final.
There are two exceptions:
First, a “new rule” will apply retroactively if it is “substantive,”
...
5
The Board of Estimates still gave small boroughs like Staten Island more representatives per voter than large boroughs like Manhattan. Therefore it violated the one man, one vote principal which is evaluated with respect to all representatives having votes in a body, not just those that hold a majority.
The analysis is to take all at large seats that don't ...
5
From the holdings of May 14, 2018 in NJ. v. NCAA,
As the Tenth Amendment confirms, all legislative power not
conferred on Congress by the Constitution is reserved for the States.
Absent from the list of conferred powers is the power to
issue direct orders to the governments of the States.
The federal law in question ...
5
Because the nations that made the list (which was modified at the time of the SCOTUS hearing) were selected based on their ability to provide the US with documentation for vetting of immigrants (or rather their lack of an ability), not religion, and the courts give the legislature (Congress) and the executive branch (President) wide discretion when matters ...
5
There is a special type of law enforcement officer, called a "bailiff" who is charged with maintaining order in a courtroom, and often, a bailiff is a direct subordinate of a judge who must follow the judge's orders.
Judges can also issue special kinds of court orders, called "writs" which are a direction to a law enforcement agency generally to take ...
4
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:
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 United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of ...
4
I did not find any instance in which the US Supreme Court has ever used "Natural Moral Law." However, it did use "Moral Law" 13 times.
Ogden v. Saunders
Jordan v. De George
DeWeese v. ACLU of Ohio Foundation
Van Orden v. Perry
McGowan v. Maryland
Interstate Cir. v. Dallas
Times Film Corp. v. Chicago
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson
League v. DE YOUNG ET ...
4
As several other people have stated 28 U.S.C 445 declares that Judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, should consider recusing themselves in such situations. Yet there is no higher court to enforce such a recusal. In such a situation by separation of powers there can be no remedy, except the ultimate remedy of impeachment.
Impeachment allows ...
4
There is no opinion from the Ninth Circuit. I just checked PACER, and there is a docketed order dated May 18, 2016:
Filed order (STEPHEN REINHARDT, MARY H. MURGUIA and JOHN B. OWENS) We have reviewed appellant’s opening brief, appellees’ motion for summary affirmance and appellant’s opposition thereto. We conclude that the questions raised in this appeal ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
