Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Montgomery ◽  
Michael P. Fix ◽  
Justin T. Kingsland
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Court

scholarly journals In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Structural Relationship ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Court System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
In The Beginning

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Section 25 has long been thought to be one of the most important provisions of the most important jurisdictional statute enacted by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave concrete institutional shape to a federal judiciary only incompletely defined by Article III. And section 25 supplied a key piece of the structural relationship between the previously existing state court systems and the new federal court system that Congress constructed with the Act. It provided for Supreme Court appellate review of certain state court decisions denying the federal-law-based rights of certain litigants.

Law, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Religion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek H. Davis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Church And State ◽  
Religion And Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
State Court ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court’s religion jurisprudence is typically analyzed based on whether a court’s decision emerges from an Establishment Clause analysis or a Free Exercise Clause analysis. While this method is useful, a more in-depth analysis can be undertaken by identifying various philosophical themes that describe the court’s varied approaches to deciding religion cases. The cases can be analyzed under at least four separate but interrelated themes: separation of church and state, cooperation between sacred and secular activities in religion-based contexts, equal treatment among religions, and the integration of religion and politics. This article examines the High Court’s often controversial decisions affecting religion through the lenses of these four themes. The term “separation of church and state” is frequently used to describe the American relationship between law and religion, but this term is far too simplistic a description of how church and state interact in the American system; the ways in which the system sometimes embraces separation but sometimes does not, are analyzed and explained. Consistent with the misconception that the Supreme Court always seeks to “separate” church and state, court analysts will sometimes describe the court’s strategy as giving “no aid” to religion. This also is a simplistic analysis, since it can clearly be shown that the court does not seek to “wall” off religion from government aid in all cases. Rather, the court tends to sanction state support of “secular” activities that arise in religion contexts while denying state aid to the “sacred” components of religious activity. “Equality” is a hallmark of American democracy. While the Founders did not earmark equality as a goal of the religion clauses, the concept has nevertheless emerged as a byproduct of deeper goals, namely sanctioning religious pluralism and providing equal access to government office. If separation of church and state were really the centerpiece of how religion and state activity interact in the United States, the Supreme Court would not sanction the involvement of religion in public debate and discourse, nor would it permit political candidates and officeholders to freely talk about religion in their personal lives and its role in American political life. But the court carefully crafts a jurisprudence that rarely intrudes on this kind of activity. In sum, looking at Supreme Court religion cases through a number of philosophical lenses is a fruitful guide to understanding court decisions that are otherwise often highly complex and confusing.

The Complexities of State Court Compliance with U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Fix ◽  
Justin T. Kingsland ◽  
Matthew D. Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Court

Heeding Congress's Message: The United States Supreme Court Bars Federal Courthouse Doors to Habeas Relief Against All but Irrational State Court Decisions, and Oftentimes Doubly So

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Criminal Convictions ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Federal Constitutional

Federal habeas corpus challenges to state criminal convictions grew significantly between 1948 and 1996 when traditional de novo review was coupled with an expanding list of federal constitutional protections the Supreme Court made applicable to the states. The landscape changed dramatically in 1996 when Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Old and new procedural barriers to habeas review were codified. Merits review of state court decisions became highly deferential. In a series of recent decisions discussed in this article, most notably Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011), the Court strongly expressed its frustration with the failure of lower courts to heed Congress' mandate. Federal courthouse doors are now closed to all but the rare case where there “is no possibility for fair-minded disagreement” the state court acted unreasonably (not just erroneously) in deciding the merits. Review becomes “doubly deferential” when the claim is one where deference is already owed in state court; most notably, challenges to the effectiveness of counsel and to the sufficiency of the evidence. Deference is owed even when the state court issues a summary merits decision without opinion.

scholarly journals Evidence Legitimacy of Intern Certification Before Primary Consideration in Law Issuance by Judge Within Private Dispute

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Ruslin Ruslin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
May Fourth

A Custom in society about completing Transaction deals or agreements are confirmed in many ways (oral, written or noted) and somehow proved with piece of paper (Receipt) for transaction as receiver accepts goods or services without cordage of notary / Property officials, in verse 5, act number 5 1960 about Essences of Agriculture determines that; “Agriculture Law upon lands, water, and air are customized act unless limited within nation affair ……. etc,Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 126K/Sip/1973, dated May Fourth 1976 which stated that ; “ The Legitimacy of Property Purchasing is not merely absolute confirmed in supervision of Property officials “, read also Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 665K/Sip/1979, dated July twenty second 1980, as follows : “ as The Transaction occurred between Marketer and Customer supervised by authorized chief attended by two witnesses and cost is accepted by the marketer, therefore the purchasing is absolutely legal before the law even not committed in a supervision of Property Officialls. It is alike to Surabaya State Court Issuance Number: 451/Pdt.G/2008/PN.Sby, dated April seventh 2009 with fixed Law Issuance states; “Property transaction is legal as long as completing conditions of act 1320 BW”. Judge Law Consideration about Supremacy or value of Intern Certificate Evidence for one private case among others are frequently occurred in Legitimacy of Internal Certification, therefore there are Evidence Isuance Misperceptions about its supremacy by some Judges (as Supreme Court Issuance Number. 537K/Pdt/1985, but there are some Judge Considerations confirmed as Internal Certification is renowned verification it equals to authentic one (as confirmed by Issuance of Supreme Court number. 4434K/Pdt/1986). However, any Judges stated as the evidence for the certification is created as a primary written record (Stated by Supreme Court Issuance Number. 167K/PDT). Keywords: legitimacy; intern certification; signature legitimacy

scholarly journals The Problematics of Simple Lawsuit Implementation To Reduce Civil Cases In Supreme Court

AL-HUKAMA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-194
Author(s):  
Bambang Sugeng ◽  
Zahry Vandawati Ch.
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Simple System ◽  
State Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Court Process

This research has purpose to analyze the implementation of a simple lawsuit settlement to reduce the accumulation of civil cases in the Supreme Court. Also to analyze the constraints and obstacles in the application of simple claim resolution to reduce the buildup of civil cases and investigate the constraints and obstacles in the application of simple claim resolution to reduce the buildup of civil cases. This research is normative legal research that used the approach of statute approach and conceptual approach. The result of this research indicated that the implementation of simple lawsuit mechanismin court process could be quite helpful for citizen to settle the civil cases on state court with a quick process, simple system and low cost. In the context of implementing a simple lawsuit mechanism in court proceedings, there are several obstacles and have not maximally utilized in society, such as the minimum limit for the value of material claims is at most Rp. 200,000,000.00 (two hundred million rupiahs).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document