Constitutional Law. Establishment Clause. Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Decision Upholding School Board Policy Allowing Graduation Prayer despite Supreme Court Vacatur. Adler v. Duval County School Board, 250 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2001) (En banc), Cert. Denied, 122 S. Ct. 664 (2001)

2002 ◽  
Vol 115 (7) ◽  
pp. 2050 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
School Board ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Establishment Clause

scholarly journals Constructing a Tower of Babble: An Examination of Purpose in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Griffin Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Establishment Clause ◽  
Proper Place ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Future Outcomes ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

“Purpose” is a key component of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court has expanded the role purpose plays in various areas of constitutional analysis over the last half-century, the Court seemingly continues to muddy the waters as to purpose’s proper place in Establishment Clause cases. This Comment focuses on the function and operation of purpose in Establishment Clause cases in order to probe the complications and obstacles inherent to this area of constitutional law. By constructing and applying an analytical framework that examines modern Establishment Clause cases through the lenses of “conceptions of purpose,” “evidence of purpose,” and “indicia of impermissible purpose,” this Comment provides critical takeaways about the development and current state of the Establishment Clause—as well as potential future outcomes in these cases. Ultimately, the dispositive consideration in Establishment Clause cases is the utilization and weight given by individual Justices in any given case to the factors discussed in this Comment’s analytical framework. This conclusion demonstrates the judge-dependent nature of these cases and the value certain Justices place on the institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judicial branch as a whole.

America's Lone Star Constitution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
School Finance ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Relationship

Texas has created more constitutional law than any other state. In any classroom nationwide, any basic constitutional law course can be taught using nothing but Texas cases. That, however, understates the history and politics behind the cases. Beyond representing all doctrinal areas of constitutional law, Texas cases deal with the major issues of the nation. This book charts the rich and pervasive development of Texas-inspired constitutional law. From voting rights to railroad regulations, school finance to capital punishment, poverty to civil liberty, this book provides a window into the relationship between constitutional litigation and ordinary politics at the Texas Supreme Court, illuminating how all of the fiercest national divides over what the Constitution means took shape in Texas.

Department of Constitutional Law. Lumberville, Delaware, Bridge Co., v. State Board of Assessors. Supreme Court of New Jersey

1894 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Christopher G. Tiedeman ◽  
Wm. Draper Lewis ◽  
Wm. Struthers Ellis ◽  
W. T. Ellis
Keyword(s):  
New Jersey ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
State Board

The Israeli Unfinished Constitutional Revolution: Has the Time Come for Protecting Economic and Social Rights?

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 299-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Rabin ◽  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Interpretive Strategies ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article addresses the constitutional discourse surrounding the status of economic and social rights in Israel. It examines the principal interpretive strategies adopted by the Supreme Court with regard to the 1992 basic laws (in particular, with respect to the right to human dignity) and criticizes the Court's reluctance to apply analogous strategies to incorporate economic and social rights into Israeli constitutional law. Potential explanations for this biased approach are also critically discussed. The ensuing outcome is a constitutional imbalance in Israeli law, which perpetuates the unjustified view that economic and social rights are inherently inferior to their civil and political counterparts, and puts in question Israel's compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At the same time, encouraging recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly the YATED and Marciano judgments, indicate growing acceptance on the part of the Court of the role of economic and social rights in Israeli constitutional law, and raise hopes for a belated judicial change of heart concerning the need to protect at least a ‘hard core’ of economic and social rights. Still, the article posits that the possibilities of promoting the constitutional status of economic and social rights through case-to-case litigation are limited and calls for the renewal of the legislation procedures of draft Basic Law: Social Rights in the Knesset.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Presidential Proclamation Restricting Entry of Individuals from Covered Countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 741-745 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Establishment Clause ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Security Interest ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Travel Restrictions ◽  
Preliminary Injunction

On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump's most recent iteration of restrictions on entry to the United States by nationals from certain foreign countries. Following several rewrites of this travel ban, ensuing legal challenges, and lower court injunctions, the Court, in a five-to-four decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, reversed the latest ruling of a lower court that had granted a partial preliminary injunction against the ban. Although acknowledging that there was considerable evidence tying the travel ban to bias against Muslims, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs were nonetheless unlikely to succeed either in their statutory claim that Trump lacked the authority to impose this ban or in their constitutional claim that the ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court accordingly reversed the lower court's injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling, based on the Trump administration's asserted national security interest, leaves in place travel restrictions imposed on nationals of seven countries—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—only two of which are not Muslim-majority countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document