U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Mayo v. PrometheusDOCUMENT: Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.: Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party (U.S. Supreme Court No. 10-1150)DOCUMENT: Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.: Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (U.S. Supreme Court No. 10-1150)

The facts are these: some time on the early morning of July 20, 1976, Gary Gilmore, barely three months after his release from a twelveyear sentence for armed robbery served in the federal penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, drove into a gas station in Provo, Utah, robbed Max Jensen, the station attendant, and demanded that he lie facedown on the ground. Gilmore then fired twice into Jensen's head at point-blank range with an automatic pistol; Jensen died immediately. In the evening, fourteen or fifteen hours after the first murder, Gilmore drove into a motel situated next door to the house of his relatives, Vern and Ida Damico, who had given Gilmore refuge and found him a job upon his release from prison. Gilmore demanded money from Benny Bushnell, the owner of the motel, asked him to lie face-down on the floor, and then pumped one bullet into his head; Gilmore had intended to shoot him twice, but his gun jammed, and it was several hours before Bushnell would die of his wounds. One day later, Gilmore was arrested for the murder of Benny Bushnell. He was tried and found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death: his choice of death was by firing squad. Though his mother and the American Civil Liberties Union attempted to block the execution, Gilmore demanded that the state of Utah carry out the sentence. On January 17, 1977, he was shot to death by a team of four handpicked riflemen, in the first public execution to have taken place in the United States in over a decade.

Download Full-text

US Republicans will block Supreme Court appointment

Emerald Expert Briefings ◽

10.1108/oxan-db208470 ◽

2016 ◽

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Civil Liberties ◽

The United States ◽

Divided Government ◽

Federal Regulation ◽

Role Of Government ◽

Content Type ◽

To Come

Significance A new justice has the potential to change the tenor of the Supreme Court's rulings significantly for many years to come, on issues including the scope of federal regulation, campaign finance and the federal government's powers. Scalia was a vocal political and judicial conservative, and the upcoming political fight to appoint his successor will reflect the broader conservative-progressive debate about civil liberties, the scope of the Constitution and the role of government in society. Impacts The Obama administration is likely to see many of its administrative actions upheld, at least until his term ends next January. An open Supreme Court seat may boost turnout by conservative Republican voters worried about a moderate or liberal appointment. Appointment politics and numerous federal vacancies are likely to persist as a feature of divided government in the United States.

Download Full-text

Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1961752 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 82 (4) ◽

pp. 1109-1127 ◽

Cited By ~ 249

Author(s):

Gregory A. Caldeira ◽

John R. Wright

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

United States Supreme ◽

Amicus Curiae ◽

Organized Interests ◽

Using Data ◽

The U.S ◽

Selection Of

Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

Download Full-text