Sentences with phrase «majority of justices»

NPR's Nina Totenberg wrote yesterday that «a clear majority of justices at the U.S. Supreme Court seemed troubled Wednesday by a Missouri grant program that bars state money from going to religious schools for playground improvement.»

A clear majority of justices at the U.S. Supreme Court seemed troubled Wednesday by a Missouri grant program that bars state money from going to religious schools for playground improvement.

A 6 - 2 majority of justices issued a decision upholding federal agency rules to control coal - fired power plant emissions from 28 states.

Most Supreme Court watchers are predicting that a majority of justices will side with the petitioner — Mark Janus, a child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services — against labor in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.

A majority of the Justices went so far as to proclaim, «The Free Exercise Clause commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to religion... all officials must remember their own high duty to the Constitution.»

In the case widely recognized as the more pivotal of the two, Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which a claim was squarely asserted that same - sex couples have a federal constitutional right to be married anywhere in the country, the majority of the justices decided not to decide.

The Justices know full well what they are doing, which means that Scalia and Thomas are right: a majority of Justices have decided to rule us without any warrant in law.

And since you keep ignoring my main point - that the combination of all measures allows for a cleaning of the majority of the justice system which is a typical start for dictatorships - any discussion is fruitless.

[1] In 1954, the Supreme Court declared that separate was inherently unequal, and as recently as 2007, a majority of Justices affirmed that there are compelling reasons to voluntarily pursue integrated schools and to prevent racially isolated schools.

Although a majority of the Justices agreed that the Long Island, N.Y., school board can be required to defend in court its motives for having removed...

While unlikely, it is conceivable that a majority of the justices hearing Zelman could agree with the argument that providing unrestricted aid to children attending sectarian schools allows the state to endorse, subsidize, and advance religion.

Two recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions, both written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, indicate that a majority of the justices approve of policies that the court's equal - protection jurisprudence would seem to forbid as unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Predicting how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule based on oral arguments can be a risky business, but the January 11 arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association indicate that a majority of the justices want to overturn a 38 - year - old mistake and eliminate one of the most cherished powers of teachers unions — the authority to confiscate money from nonmembers.

After the January 11 arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a majority of the justices were clearly poised to overturn a 38 - year - old mistake and eliminate one of the most cherished powers of teachers unions — the authority to confiscate money from nonmembers.

Friedrich's case made it to the Supreme Court, where a majority of justices seemed ready to rule in her favor and against the constitutionality of agency fees.

A majority of the justices are likely to rule that unions can't charge «agency fees» to non-members — making it financially advantageous for more teachers to drop out of their union, and allowing non-members to cease paying into it.

Ultimately, it is our responsibility to hold the State accountable to meet its constitutional duty,» according to a ruling signed by a majority of justices.

It is worth noting that the majority of the justices on that court were appointed by presidents of the same political party as Mr. McConnell — a good indicator that this legal decision, and the rules in question, are the result of sound law, policy, and science, not politics.

Although they fail to «draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable,» id., at 458; Has lip, 499 U. S., at 18, a majority of the Justices agreed that the Due Process Clause imposes a limit on punitive damages awards.

At the supreme court, the majority of the justices avoided the controversial issue and deferred to the finding of the trial court.

The bill (S. 1768) would allow banning of cameras in particular cases if a majority of the justices believed that cameras would violate a litigant's due process rights.

A majority of the Justices also agree that, as to the plaintiffs who reside in Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, a judgment for the defendants shall enter in the Superior Court because same - sex marriage is prohibited in those States.

Now, if the majority of justices were billionaires, that would be out of touch.

The majority of justices in Gosselin acknowledged as much when they refused to forswear for all time the protection of positive obligations, recognizing that they may eventually be possible under an expansive living - tree interpretation.

There's much to be said for putting a politician on the Court: A majority of justices on the Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education had a background in elected politics, as opposed to no members of the Roberts Court.

A majority of the justices also agreed that a PTAB institution decision is not appealable.

A majority of the justices support the first opinion, written by Johnson, so Madsen (writing a separate concurring opinion) is referring to the previous opinion.

When courts are left to police themselves, the strength of a court's standards depends on the will of a majority of the justices.

In a 6 - 1 decision, a majority of the justices ruled that the Criminal Code provisions around bestiality do not adequately define which sexual acts with animals are prohibited.

But my gut instinct about a lot of SCOTUS sentencing issues is rarely spot - on, and I suspect that the validity of Harris might come up during Tuesday's oral argument even if the majority of Justices are inclined to resolve O'Brien and Burgess on statutory interpretation grounds.