Sentences with phrase «ruling in state supreme»

That news followed the release of dueling assessments on the college's condition in the months before an expected ruling in State Supreme Court on the legality of having tuition at the 155 - year - old institution.

Dixon filed suit, challenging the board's ruling in state Supreme Court based on a 2003 decision involving a legislative race in Colonie, and arguing he had recently been drawn out of the 4th: «Because the line was pushed to the middle of my road.

Not exact matches

The state's environment minister has picked three legal professionals to conduct a review into the Environmental Protection Authority, in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Roe 8 highway project last month.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision at the beginning of 2015 to accept the case in which a court majority ruled in June that state gay marriage bans are unconstitutional was a likely trigger, Warbelow said.

A Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that a challenge to the state's 145 - year - old ban on prostitution may proceed, saying a 2003 Supreme Court ruling opened the door for closer scrutiny of the law.

In June 2016, the Supreme Court split 4 - 4 in the case, leaving in place an appeals court ruling in favor of the statesIn June 2016, the Supreme Court split 4 - 4 in the case, leaving in place an appeals court ruling in favor of the statesin the case, leaving in place an appeals court ruling in favor of the statesin place an appeals court ruling in favor of the statesin favor of the states..

As the Supreme Court gets ready in June to rule on the issue for the second time in two years, conservative states have rushed to enact so - called Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) laws that would allow businesses to object on religious grounds to serving LGBT people and same - sex couples.

Florida's state Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a capital case doesn't have the right to have a jury determine that.

In papers being filed with the state Supreme Court in Manhattan, the restaurant group likened the rule to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's failed effort to curb sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (473 millilitersIn papers being filed with the state Supreme Court in Manhattan, the restaurant group likened the rule to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's failed effort to curb sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (473 millilitersin Manhattan, the restaurant group likened the rule to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's failed effort to curb sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (473 milliliters).

A 1992 Supreme Court ruling decreed that online vendors can sell goods without collecting sales tax, as long as they don't have a physical location in a given state.

Same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states, and the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling on whether such couples have a federal right to marry in June.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA only applied to the federal government, not the states.

After the Supreme Court in 1911 struck down the form of resale price maintenance enabled by fair trade laws, 59 Congress in 1937 carved out an exception for state fair trade laws through the Miller - Tydings Act.60 When the Supreme Court in 1951 ruled that producers could enforce minimum prices only against those retailers that had signed contracts agreeing to do so, 61 Congress responded with a law making minimum prices enforceable against nonsigners too.62

Scalia, who previously served as DOL's chief legal officer and is the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, agreed, stating that the DOL rule's impact «is nationwide, but it's very great in Texas.

Also March 20, 2018: New York state Judge Jennifer Schecter rules against Trump's lawyers» motion to dismiss the defamation case by Summer Zervos, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Clinton v. Jones that presidents are not immune from civil suits.

Just 16 states and the District of Columbia have set up their own health insurance marketplaces, which left millions of residents in the 34 states that rely on exchanges run by the federal government vulnerable to the Supreme Court's ruling.

Zervos scored a victory recently when a New York Supreme Court judge ruled that her suit could go forward, rejecting the Trump team's argument that a sitting president can't be sued in state court.

That's how I read the Supreme Court's decision not to hear cases in which lower courts ruled that marriage laws in various states that recognize unions only of a man and a woman are unconstitutional.

in 1937 the supreme court of the united states ruled it is consti tutional — «to spend for the general welfare» — reference helvering v. davis.

Pretty strong language, but no stronger than the metaphor Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation used, in an op - ed article in The Washington Times, to «describe a bill designed to prevent corporations from rechartering abroad for tax purposes: Mitchell described this legislation as the «Dred Scott tax bill,» referring to the infamous 1857 Supreme Court ruling that required free states to return escaped slaves.

Examples abound, but here are two: the Oriental Exclusion Act (1924), which prohibited most immigration from Asia, including foreign - born wives and the children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry; and United States vs. Bhaghat Singh Thind (1923), in which the Supreme Court ruled that Indians from the Asian subcontinent can not become US citizens.

In the United States, the Louisiana state Supreme Court ruled last year that state law does not require a priest to notify authorities after hearing evidence of child abuse from a child making a confession.

This happened, for example, when the Supreme Court of the United States, in a ruling that helped to precipitate the Civil War, held in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were noncitizens» and, for all practical purposes, nonpersons» possessed of no rights that white people must respect.

Further, it was built into actual political institutions in later Old Testament times; the rule of the high priests represented a complete triumph of the claim that church is supreme above state.

Just now, by a vote of five to four the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same - sex couples may now marry in all 50 states, striking down the bans of states who have attempted States ruled that same - sex couples may now marry in all 50 states, striking down the bans of states who have attempted states, striking down the bans of states who have attempted states who have attempted do so.

The Supreme Court gave a boost to their conviction that secularism is a genuine competing faith in the ruling in the 1961 Torcaso case, in which «Secular Humanism» was identified as a religion, and in Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in the 1963 Schempp case, which referred to a refusal to permit religious exercises in schools as not «the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.»

In last week's Supreme Court ruling (King v. Burwell), the majority (6 — 3) ruled that the federally run health insurance exchanges in 36 states can receive taxpayer subsidies through the Affordable Care Act and qualified health planIn last week's Supreme Court ruling (King v. Burwell), the majority (6 — 3) ruled that the federally run health insurance exchanges in 36 states can receive taxpayer subsidies through the Affordable Care Act and qualified health planin 36 states can receive taxpayer subsidies through the Affordable Care Act and qualified health plans.

Many social conservatives are rightly disappointed and dismayed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states.

The decision on Friday will open marriage legally in the remaining fourteen states, and will give new legal protection for those who got married under court rulings that actually could not be considered truly final until the Supreme Court itself had decided the constitutional question.

In 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in a historical decision, that separate but equal facilities in education was not constitutionaIn 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in a historical decision, that separate but equal facilities in education was not constitutionain a historical decision, that separate but equal facilities in education was not constitutionain education was not constitutional.

One of the most powerful of them, Pat Robertson, now in the midst of an as - yet - undeclared presidential campaign, has equated church - state separationists with communists and decries the «unelected tyrants» of the Supreme Court, encouraging defiance of its rulings.

When the soldier refused, citing a Supreme Court ruling that states there was no requirement to pray in public ceremonies, the officer then took the matter to the platoon sergeant, who also told the soldier to bow their head for uniformity purposes, according to Patrick Jones, a Ft. Jackson Public Affairs Officer.

However, in 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that a public college may enforce an «all comers» policy on a religious group without violating the First Amendment if it applied the policy universally to all groups.

There is another point of vulnerability: the 1983 Supreme Court ruling in Bob Jones University v. United States.

Guttmacher's analysis comes as Time magazine reports in its cover story this week that pro-life supporters have been winning the battle against abortion since the United States Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade ruling 40 years ago.

(Note: This post has been updated to clarify that Medi - Share serves 50,000 people in 49 states, members commit to not abuse alcohol, and operational changes were made prior to the state Supreme Court ruling.)

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that Medi - Share, which currently serves nearly 50,000 people in 49 states, offers a «shifting of risk» and thus shouldn't be exempt from state insurance regulations.

In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9 - 0 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide.

There has always been some tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise protections of the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court, when considering a similar challenge to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2005 — wherein the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that granting protections to religious prisoners amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause — ruled that alleviating a state - imposed substantial burden on religious practice did not violate the Establishment Clause.

There, Governor Orville Faubus and other state officials maintained that they were not bound by the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown.

Does the Supreme Court's ruling striking down state prohibitions of abortion in the 1973 cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton belong on the plus side of the Court's ledger with Brown v. Board or on the minus side with Dred Scott?

This happened, for example, when the Supreme Court of the United States, in a ruling that helped to precipitate the Civil War, held in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were noncitizens — and, for all practical purposes, nonpersons — possessed of no rights that white people must respect.

Interfaith curricula have been developed in a number of states since the Supreme Court's ruling 20 years ago.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, I believe a new and exciting chapter in the church - state debate may be evolving around Jewish attempts in Pittsburgh and other places to legitimate the display of Jewish religious symbols in the public square.

It is my hope, moreover, that this argument may be reflected in a continuing shift away from the strict separationist ideal that has for so long guided (and often misguided) Supreme Court rulings on church - state issues.

To cite one of too many possible examples, a Jewish organization, the aggressively secularist American Jewish Congress, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling upholding a state ban on the posting of the Ten Commandments in public high schools.

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the Gaidry case took note of these two cases, but held them not reconcilable with the later ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Baglin v. Cusenier, 221 U. S. 680 [1 T. M. Rep. 147], wherein it was held that the fact that the primary meaning of the word «Chartreuse» was geographical did not prevent the acquisition of the exclusive right to its use as the designation of a liqueur made by the monks of the Monastery of La Grande Chartreuse.

In his ruling, N.Y. Supreme Court justice Manuel Mendez wrote, «New York State penal law does not refer to «wagering» or «betting,» rather it states that a person, «risks something of value.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that same - sex couples could marry no matter which state they lived in, many believed it would open the door to polyamorous marriage — marriage among three or more people.

We are happy to report in response to a lawsuit filed against the Commonwealth's regulatory use of priority habitat screening to protect endangered species, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled unanimously to affirm the state's authority under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA).