Sentences with phrase «court majority opinion»

But the Supreme Court majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA acted unlawfully when it failed to consider how much the regulation would cost the power industry before deciding to craft the rule.

Not exact matches

In a majority opinion written by Judge Christopher F. Droney, the appeals court said the Barry Diller - backed Internet company does not appear to violate copyright law because subscribers are assigned to their own tiny antennas at Aereo's Brooklyn data centre.

In the majority opinion, Justice william o. douglas, writing for the Court, rejected the notion that the judiciary is obligated to enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Consti - tution.

That was clearly the hope of the Supreme Court majority that signed onto the opinion written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun.

Many who hated Scalia's rulings could not help but be entertained by his razor - sharp writing, which he used especially in his dissenting opinions to carve up the majority's reasoning (my favorite is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where among other things he referred to the majority's «Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life - tenured judges — leading a Volk who will be «tested by following»» the Court's rulings obediently).

Against this background readers may perceive the cruel irony in Justice Brennan's opinion for the Supreme Court majority, holding the Louisiana «balanced treatment» statute unconstitutional because the creationists who promoted it had a «religious purpose.»

Ironically, the 2016 — 2017 Supreme Court roundup also appearing in the October issue of First Things («A Less Corrupt Term») quotes Justice Samuel Alito saying of the Court's majority opinion on same - sex marriage that it «evidences... the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture's conception of constitutional interpretation.»

In the opinion of many constitutional experts, a majority of five Justices of the Supreme Court used the case as a vehicle to reason the Free Exercise Clause out of the Constitution.

The opinions collected here» some dissenting from the majority of the Court, others concurring in judgment but rejecting the majority's reasoning» show how Scalia applies his textualism to these issues, and how it differs from competing theories of interpretation, most notably the «living Constitution» view favored by many on the left and the varieties of intentionalism favored by many conservatives and moderates.

As Scalia's dissent makes clear, the majority opinion in Lawrence epitomizes everything that is wrong with the contemporary Court» its arbitrariness, its contempt for democratic governance, its constant readiness to fashion new constitutional rights out of whole cloth.

But in keeping with Eugene V. Rostow's characterization of the contemporary Supreme Court as a «vital national seminar,» it is worth noting that the original charge to the Court was only that it render an aye or a nay.44 It quickly began handing down written opinions also, however, and under Marshall began the practice of trying for a single majority opinion, which gave «judicial pronouncements a forceful unity they had formerly lacked.

Because public opinion supporting certain kinds of abortion is close to unanimous; it was formed before the 1973 Supreme Court decision; and the majority that have come of sexual age since that year now take for granted that fertility decisions are to be made only by the individuals involved.

Noonan's opinion was later overruled by a majority of his Appellate Court peers.

I still remember my great disappointment in reading Chief Justice Burger's opinion in Lemon, but I hoped then that we would, some day, have a Supreme Court majority that would recognize the paramount importance of the Free Exercise Clause.

In the absence of legislation on assisted dying, we have to establish the right to a doctor - assisted death through the courts but we also hope that Paul's case will help to stimulate public debate on this issue, and convince Parliament to listen to the massive majority opinion in this country and legalise assisted dying.»

The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion).

In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two - part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: «First, the plaintiff must prove that «race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.»

The text cited in Whipple vs. Martinson was from the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court, not Congress.

The majority Court opinion appeared to concede the challenger's argument, but held that the individual mandate was as a matter of law a tax on a class of people (those who do not buy insurance), not a statutory requirement of affirmative behavior.

The Supreme Court decision in the McDonnell case is expected to make it more difficult for the federal government to prosecute public corruption cases, a prospect Chief Justice John Roberts challenged in his majority opinion.

Writing for the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that the formula had «no logical relation to the present day,» leaving open the possibility that Congress could come up with a new formula the court would find appropriate.

... As I read the filed opinions, a majority of the Court would approve statutes that provided for a moment of silence but did not mention prayer.

If so, such an opinion would be especially compelling coming from the pen of Justice Thomas, the lone black member of the Court, who has written for the majority in a number of important cases involving religion and education.

In considering whether Arizona was meeting the requirements of the EEOA, Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion faulted the district court and the Ninth Circuit for focusing on the «narrow question» of funding, and ignoring whether managerial and instructional reforms had brought the state into compliance.

«The majority opinion turns entirely on procedural issues and did not address the trial court's findings that the constitutional rights of LAUSD's students would be violated without judicial intervention,» Sapp said.

The debate between the two policy analysts, which appears to have influenced both majority and minority opinions of the court, is presented in the upcoming issue of Education Next.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion in the Cleveland voucher case, Zelman v. Simmons - Harris, was of course the most newsworthy aspect of the decision, but the dissents were no less revealing.

Following are excerpts from the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27 decision in the Cleveland voucher case, Zelman v. Simmons - Harris:

But they emphasized that the court's majority opinion was narrowly written and does not broach questions about whether taxpayer dollars may be used for religious purposes such as religious education.

In writing the majority opinion, Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer said Commonwealth Court has previously decided in lawsuits involving Montessori Charter School in Erie and Northside Urban Pathways in Pittsburgh that more than one charter school site is permitted.

«It is crucial for a democratic society to provide all of its schoolchildren with fair access to an unsegregated education,» Ellen A. Peters, then chief justice of the state's High Court, wrote in the majority opinion in July 1996.

Their concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion argued: (1) the court should not have reached the issue because: «n reaching the merits of the Section 10 challenge, the court ignores the fact that the Duncan complaint (which raised the Section 10 challenge) was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim under NRCP 12 (b)(5);» and (2) the issue is one of first impression, which the justices, in dissent, said is «not as well - defined and easily resolved as my colleagues suggest,... the proper action here, had a majority of this court not determined that SB 302's funding is unconstitutional, would be to remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings and factual development as to this claim.»

The court's majority opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes: «It is better for all the world,» Holmes wrote, «if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

In the Supreme Court hearing, the majority opinion written by Justice Roberts stated that these federal courts abused their discretionary power and felt Navy operations were more important than marine mammal health.

In her opinion, part 3 seems to cast doubt on the acceptance by the Court of the CJEU's interpretation of Article 53 of the Charter, although she does not believe this was actually the opinion of the majority.

It should be noted that under Spanish law, a member of the Court may write both the majority decision and a personal opinion.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court and concluded his majority opinion by declaring: «We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process.»

For example, the majority or minority opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp., [1995] 4 SCR 634, 1995 CanLII 55.

Yesterday, in the case of Quebec Superior Court Justice Michel Girouard — who admitted to meeting regularly with a man later convicted of trafficking — the CJC rejected the majority opinion of its own inquiry committee to remove the judge from the bench.

It is the first paragraph in Gorsuch's first majority opinion since joining the Supreme Court, Henson v. Santander.

«Justice Blackmun wrote 835 opinions while serving on the court: 313 majority opinions, 238 concurrences, and 284 dissents.

A relevant case here is Brewer v. Williams, in which the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, by Justice Stewart, stated that

According to the Court it «did no more than acknowledge the fact that, as stated by the Council in the course of the proceedings relating to that Opinion, there was no possibility of the required majority being obtained within the Council for the Union to be able to exercise alone the external competence that it shares with the Member States in this area.»

See also the majority opinion at page 11: «Given our explanation in Booker that appellate «reasonableness» review merely asks whether the trial court abused its discretion...»

«The executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction,» Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5 - to - 3 majority, said at the end of a 73 - page opinion that in sober tones shredded each of the administration's arguments, including the assertion that Congress had stripped the court of jurisdiction to decide the case.

Thereafter, she served on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and was recognized as one of the pros at bringing majority and minority opinions into line.

Entertaining different views of the questions now before us in this case, and having arrived at a conclusion different from that of a majority of the Court, and considering the importance of the case and the constitutional principle involved in it, I shall proceed, with all due respect for the opinion of others, to assign the reasons upon which my own has been formed.

The majority opinion of Justice Stewart was specifically approved by a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145 where Justice Brian Dickson held, at p. 159, that s. 8 of the Charter containing the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not restricted to the protection of property or associated with the law of trespass, at p. 159: «[I] n Katz... Stewart J. delivering the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court declared at p. 351 that «the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places».

Supreme Court Dec. 29, 2016)-- 4 - 3 decision, majority opinion by Justice Cuellar and dissent by Justice Werdegar; discussed in our Dec. 29, 2016 post: Attorney - client privilege does not categorically shield from California Public Records Act disclosure billing invoices sent by clients in concluded, non-active cases because legal consultation was not the purpose of the invoices; however, the privilege did protect billing invoice entries in active, pending cases.