Federal Courts. Jurisdiction. Review by Supreme Court of Federal Question First Raised on Rehearing in State Court of Last Resort

1935 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 150
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Court

scholarly journals Estimating Judicial Ideology

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-118
Author(s):  
Adam Bonica ◽  
Maya Sen
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Future Research ◽  
State Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Ideology ◽  
Rightward Movement

We review the substantial literature on estimating judicial ideology, from the US Supreme Court to the lowest state court. As a way to showcase the strengths and drawbacks of various measures, we further analyze trends in judicial polarization within the US federal courts. Our analysis shows substantial gaps in the ideology of judges appointed by Republican Presidents versus those appointed by Democrats. Similar to trends in Congressional polarization, the increasing gap is mostly driven by a rightward movement by judges appointed by Republicans. We conclude by noting important avenues for future research in the study of the ideology of judges.

scholarly journals The First Amendment And The Ministerial Exemption: Federal Statutory Mandates

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 989
Author(s):  
Georgia L. Holmes ◽  
Penny Herickhoff
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Equal Opportunity ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Religious Organizations ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Unemployment Compensation ◽  
Special Character

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify; mso-pagination: none;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">On January 11, 2012 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School v. Equal Opportunity Commission, et al.</span></span><a name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" href="http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/JABR/author/saveSubmit/3#_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-themecolor: text1;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> that the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause requires the recognition of a ministerial exception from the application of the discrimination provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lower federal courts had long recognized such an exemption in federal anti-discrimination statutes, yet the U.S. Supreme Court had never formally done so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The decision of the Court was unanimous, although separate concurring opinions were filed by Justice Thomas and by Justice Alito, who was also joined by Justice Kagan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, in its decision, the Court has mandated immunity for religious organizations from the laws that prohibit discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Hosanna Tabor decision raises issues of how far such a ministerial exemption extends and to what extent it immunizes religious organizations from liability for other types of statutorily prohibited and tortious conduct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is concern in some sectors that too broad an exemption would immunize religious organizations under numerous neutral, generally applicable laws, such as those governing sexual abuse, unemployment compensation, employer social Security deductions, and sales taxes, all of which have previously been applied to religious organizations.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> <hr size="1" /></span><div style="mso-element: footnote;" id="ftn1"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;" class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" href="http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/JABR/author/saveSubmit/3#_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">____ U.S. ____.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></span></p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>

scholarly journals Retiring Forum Non Conveniens

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie Gardner
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
New York University ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Scope Of Application

92 New York University Law Review 390 (2017)When it comes to transnational litigation in the federal courts, it is time to retire the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The doctrine, which allows judges to decline jurisdiction in cases they believe would be better heard in foreign courts, is meant to promote international comity and protect defendant fairness. But it is not well-designed for the former purpose, and given recent developments at the Supreme Court, it is dangerously redundant when it comes to the latter. This Article seeks to demythologize forum non conveniens, to question its continuing relevance, and to encourage the courts and Congress to narrow its scope of application so that, when the time is right, it may be fully interred.

scholarly journals How the Federal Cause of Action Relates to Rights, Remedies, and Jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Preis
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
History Of ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
The U.S

Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the federal cause of action is "analytically distinct" from rights, remedies, and jurisdiction. Yet, just pages away in the U.S. Reports are other cases in which rights, remedies, and jurisdiction all hinge on the existence of a cause of action. What, then, is the proper relationship between these concepts?The goal of this Article is to articulate that relationship. This Article traces the history of the cause of action from eighteenth-century England to its modem usage in the federal courts. This history demonstrates that the federal cause of action is largely distinct from rights, closely related to (and sometimes synonymous with) remedies, and distinct from jurisdiction except where Congress instructs otherwise or the case implicates sovereign immunity. Sorting out these relationships provides several benefits, including refining the doctrine of prudential standing, clarifying the grounds for federal jurisdiction, and dispelling claims that Congress lacks power over certain causes of action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document