Sentences with phrase «equal protection holding»

However, the Court is silent on the strength of the State's interest, apparently leaving this issue, among many others, to the further «litigation [that] will be required to spell out the contours of the Court's equal protection holding today...» Ante at 102 (WHITE, J., concurring).

Not exact matches

We always advise people to have enough liability protection to equal the total amount of assets they are currently holding or are likely to hold in the future.

When the U.S. Muslim community sounds out LOUD and CLEAR, without equivocation, and immediately against all forms of terrorism, including all aggressive religious intolerance for human rights, women's right, children, equal protection under the law, the respect for other religions to coexist, the right to free speech, and the ability to separate church from state, IF THEY FINALLY DO THAT AND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold dear.

To hold that same - sex marriage is part of the fundamental right to marry, or necessary for giving LGBT people the equal protection of the laws, the Court implicitly made a number of other assumptions: that one - flesh union has no distinct value in itself, only the feelings fostered by any kind of consensual sex; that there is nothing special about knowing the love of the two people whose union gave you life, whose bodies gave you yours, so long as you have two sources of care and support; that what children need is parenting in some disembodied sense, and not mothering and fathering.

«The Court holds that denying civil marriage to same - sex couples violates their fundamental right to civil marriage under the due - process clause and their right to equal protection in the enjoyment...

Equal protection under the law means * equal * not asterisk, special pleading if you're a closely held company with specific religious vEqual protection under the law means * equal * not asterisk, special pleading if you're a closely held company with specific religious vequal * not asterisk, special pleading if you're a closely held company with specific religious views.

Radical feminism overrode the Constitution in United States v. Virginia, which held, seven votes to one, that the equal protection clause required Virginia Military Institute to admit women.

The Supreme Court, in an indecipherable opinion (Romer v. Evans), held that this denial of special status to homosexuals violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Bray v. Alexandria Women's Clinic (1993), the Court examined whether anti-abortion demonstrators could be held liable — under the Ku Klux Klan act of 1871 (amended in 1985)-- of conspiring to deprive women of the equal protection of the laws by depriving women seeking abortions of their right to interstate travel.

It can hold two car seats side - by - side (perfect for click - and - go trips), has one of the largest canopies in the category (complete with SPF 45 + protection) and includes an even larger storage basket (because double the kids equals double the stuff).

«Adam Haber will have every opportunity to explain to voters why he supports holding equal pay and other important protections for women hostage unless they are directly tied to allowing non-doctors to perform late term / partial birth abortions right up until the moment of birth.»

Gorsuch joined the opinion in Petrella v. Brownback (2015), holding that students and parents have standing to challenge statutory provisions that cap school districts» ability to raise extra money through additional property taxes, on equal protection and due process grounds.

As we have held, one form of injury under the Equal Protection Clause is being forced to compete in a race - based system that may prejudice the plaintiff, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peńa, 515 U. S. 200, 211 (1995); Northeastern Fla..

[n3] In December, 1971, [n4] the panel rendered its judgment in a per curiam opinion holding the Texas school finance system unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The West Virginia Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was not violated when the state stopped transporting private school students at public expense.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a «released time statute,» which allows students to leave school for part of the day to receive religious instruction, does not violate the Establishment or Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution or the freedom of worship or district school sections of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The judge held that the «equal protection» the plaintiffs sought was, «in effect, equally bad treatment.»

However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

All imported food under this Act shall meet requirements for food safety, inspection, labeling, and consumer protection that are at least equal to those applicable to food grown, manufactured, processed, packed, or held for consumption in the United States.

In its judgment of 26 January 2011, the Court of Appeal held that neither the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 («DDA 1995») nor Directive 2000/78 / EEC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation («the Framework Directive») afford protection from discrimination on grounds of disability to unpaid volunteers.

By hitching the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause to these transitory considerations, we would be holding, as a constitutional principle, that judicial scrutiny of classifications touching on racial and ethnic background may vary with the ebb and flow of political forces.

Because I find the Court's rejection of this holding both ill - considered and unjustifiable under established principles of equal protection, I dissent.

Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the 1 - year residency requirement did not violate the right to travel protected by the Equal Protection Clause, concluding that only a rational basis is required to uphold a residency requirement for city employment.

This notion of equal protection, accorded through holding exactly the same procedural rights as others, determinedly sets its face against the fact that the titles of others do not derive their nature and incidents from Indigenous law.

A decision in June, 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court held that same - sex marriage is a right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Fifth Circuit also held that, under the applicable «heightened - scrutiny» equal protection test, the ordinance was facially invalid because it did not substantially further an important governmental purpose.

The Court held that a city ordinance violated the Equal Protection clause, as there was not a rational relation between the ordinance and legitimate state interests.