Fines, Fees/Costs, Forfeitures, and Restitution

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-42
Author(s):  
R. Barry Ruback
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The Government

Chapter 2 discusses the primary types of economic sanctions by focusing on the three purposes of economic sanctions: (1) punishing the offender (fines), (2) funding the government (fees and forfeitures), and (3) compensating the victim (restitution). Although these three purposes are ostensibly independent, in practice compensating the government or the victim can also mean punishing the offender. Because state and local governments have in recent years focused on using economic sanctions to fund the criminal justice system, there is some detailed discussion about fees and forfeitures. The chapter also examines the constitutional status of economic sanctions as outlined in court decisions, particularly the US Supreme Court. There is a brief overview of the laws in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government regarding the three major types of economic sanctions: fines, fees, and restitution. In general, poorer states (particularly in the South) have more fees for compensating the government.

Religious Neutrality and the Government’s Freedom of Speech in the Jurisprudence of the us Supreme Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
András Koltay
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The State ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Hard Cases

The issue of the use of religious symbols by the State, the Government, the Municipalities and Courts has emerged as a practical constitutional problem during the last quarter of a century. Contradictory examples of us Supreme Court jurisprudence prove that this issue is among the constitutional ‘hard cases’. The relatively recent appearance of the problem clearly indicates the ways in which American social conditions have changed and the transformation of us society’s attitude to religion.

4. What state and local governments do

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-60
Author(s):  
Mark J. Rozell ◽  
Clyde Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
National Government ◽  
Federal System ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
State And Local

Even as most Americans fix their gaze on the actions of the federal government, states and localities are the cornerstones of the US federal system. “What state and local governments do” explains that states are free to design their own governments so long as their structure does not violate the US Constitution. All states have designed their governments to somewhat resemble the national government, with an elected governor, elected legislatures, and state supreme courts. However, each of these structures can operate in different ways, with different powers from state to state. The governments of the Native American reservations and those of the five permanently inhabited US territories are also discussed.

scholarly journals Forecasting the decisions of the US Supreme Court: lessons from the ‘affordable care act’ judgment

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-78
Author(s):  
Leighton Vaughan Williams
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Affordable Care Act ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
The Way

This paper examines the 2012 US Supreme Court consideration of the Affordable Care Act, and the resulting judgment, with a view to learning what lessons this landmark case can afford us into the way in which the US Supreme Court works, so helping us forecast its decisions. Although this is simply one judgment among many, a case is advanced here that the details of the way that the judgment was made can be used to help arbitrate between conflicting interpretations in the literature as to the way that the US Supreme Court reaches its decisions. It is argued that consideration of this case does provide particular insights which might usefully improve forecasts of future Supreme Court decisions.

scholarly journals The Application of Legal Maxim “King Can Do No Wrong” In the Constitutional Law of UK & USA: An Analytical Study

2020 ◽  
Vol V (II) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Salman Farooq ◽  
Musab Yousufi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Analytical Study ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Full Force ◽  
The Uk

The legal maxim “King can do no wrong” was in full force in the English constitutional law ever since the emergence of British Empire. The doctrine provided absolute immunity to the Crown. The king started losing his absolute prerogatives, in centuries long battle for power among the Crown and lord businessmen, which eventually resulted in the concept of liable government in the UK in the shape of the crown proceedings act 1947. On the contrary the US constitutional law is silent about the presidential immunity, following the maxim “no one, even the government is above the law”. However, the US Supreme Court is expanding the application of this doctrine by granting the immunity to the president in cases where his act falls within the constitutionally assigned duties along with negating it in cases where the act of president falls outside the outer perimeters of his constitutionally assigned duties.

3. The evolution of federalism in law

2019 ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mark J. Rozell ◽  
Clyde Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
National Government ◽  
Early Years ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Federal Authority ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
State Policymaking ◽  
The Republic ◽  
State And Local

Debates over the relative power of national and state governments have typically hinged on constitutional provisions. “The evolution of federalism in law” describes how, in the early years of the republic, the US Supreme Court played a key role in defining the nature and scope of the US federal system. It then outlines how judicial decisions of the twentieth century continued the expansion of federal authority. Although the national government has many tools to influence state policymaking and enact federal policy, US states retain important powers. For many Americans, the actions of state and local governments have a bigger impact on their lives than those of the national government.

Stolen Valor

Liars ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 39-51
Author(s):  
Cass R. Sunstein
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Great Honor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Government ◽  
First Time

In 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled, for the first time in its history, that lies and falsehoods are protected by the US Constitution. In the relevant case, a politician said that he had won the Congressional Medal of Honor, which was a palpable lie. Referring to the risks that would come from an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, the Court ruled that the government could not punish that lie. The Court was quite right to say that some false statements are protected by the Constitution, but its decision was wrong, even preposterous. A lie is worse than an innocent mistake, or even a negligent one, and if a politician says that he obtained a great honor, he imposes real harm on the public. The Court’s decision seems especially ill-considered in light of the nature and power of modern social media. It should not be read to say that falsehoods and lies are generally protected by the Constitution.

Contemporary United States Law Regarding Online Social Media Libel Standards on the 50th Year Anniversary of Times v Sullivan and 40th Year Anniversary of Gertz v Welch

ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Azriel ◽  
Charles Mayo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Public Figure ◽  
Online Social Media ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Actual Malice

Abstract2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the US Supreme Court decisions in Times v Sullivan and 40th anniversary of Gertz v Welch. These two decisions by the US Supreme Court had an important legal impact in the United States on federal law pertaining to libel, specifically proving actual malice and who is defined as a public figure or public official. This article analyzes both Supreme Court decisions within the context of present day online social media libel controversies. It also analyzes three recent federal court rulings where judges had to issue decisions based on Sullivan and Gertz’s actual malice and public figure legal principles. The article concludes that both Sullivan and Gertz are still relevant to how other federal, American courts decide issues related to defamation published in social media.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document