Supreme Court Rulings Research Articles

Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions

Interest groups have become increasingly involved in every aspect of American politics, including at the U.S. Supreme Court, with the filing of amicus curiae briefs. In recent years, the justices have been more frequently citing interest‐group‐filed briefs in their opinions, suggesting these groups play some role in the decision‐making process. What we do not know is whether these types of citations might carry any potential implications for public perceptions of the Court's decisions as this phenomenon becomes more prevalent and people become equipped with this information. To test this empirically, I implement a survey experiment with approximately 3000 respondents that assesses acceptance of Supreme Court opinions that cite interest‐group‐filed amicus curiae briefs. I find that the public is less accepting of decisions that cite ideologically overt interests in the aggregate and less accepting of decisions that cite interest groups that are ideologically incompatible with their own preferences. However, the public does not view Supreme Court decision making as political, even when the justices cite ideologically charged groups. Taken together, these findings suggest the public uses interest group source cues to evaluate Supreme Court decisions when equipped with this information and that while the public responds negatively to politics in Supreme Court decisions, the Court maintains its image as a nonpolitical entity.

State Court Influence on US Supreme Court Opinions

AbstractDespite our understanding that the US Supreme Court influences lower courts in a top-down fashion, we examine whether state courts influence Supreme Court work, namely, its majority opinions. This study of lower court influence on Supreme Court opinion writing investigates whether and when justices borrow language from state court opinions. While our fundamental interest is in whether the writings of state court judges are influential in Supreme Court opinions, we further investigate whether justices’ biases against elected judiciaries and favor for appointed systems play a role here. Our original data set includes Supreme Court cases reviewing state court decisions from 1995 to 2015. Results show that the potential for lower court influence differs for appointed versus elected state court judges, lending valuable insight into the discussion of judicial power and institutional design. Meanwhile, state courts play an important role in the development of law at the Supreme Court.

Wytyczanie granic okręgów wyborczych w wyborach do Izby Reprezentantów USA

Every 10 years, the United States conducts population census. Beyond serving various socio-economic needs, gathered data also has consequnces for the political system – the states’ population determines the number of state seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. To ensure fair representation, consisent with ‘one person, one vote’ rule, the states modify the boundaries of congressional districts after each census. The article discusses federal and state rules that bodies responsible for redistricting – mainly state legislatures and special commissions – need to consider, emphasizing the nature and scope of legal changes, introduced between 2011 and 2020. The Author claims that defederalization of the redistricting regulations and Supreme Court opinion that issues related to gerrymandering constitute political questions, thus being beyond the scope of federal judiciary are two most important redistricting-related rules developments in the analyzed decade.

Mutatis mutandis … On Euthanasia and Advanced Dementia in the Netherlands

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are common practice in the Netherlands. In response to increasing requests from patients to end their lives, physicians are finding themselves placed in particularly precarious situations because of advance directives written by patients suffering from severe dementia. In April 2020, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued two judgments in the so-called Dormicum case: a case involving the deliberate termination of the life of a 74-year-old woman suffering from advanced dementia by a geriatrician in a nursing home in The Hague. The judgment of the lower criminal court was upheld, but the sanction imposed by the appellate disciplinary court was quashed. In this paper, the author reviews the two Supreme Court rulings, argues that both are fundamentally flawed and raises questions as to what they mean for Dutch criminal law, physicians, and patients going forward.

Supreme Court rules against and in favour of Scottish independence

Supreme Court rules against and in favour of Scottish independence

Social Change Affects Law: Supreme Court Rulings Affected by Change

Social Change Affects Law: Supreme Court Rulings Affected by Change

Religion, Law, and Human Rights - the implications of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings -

미국에서 종교의 자유와 권리의 핵심은 신앙과 양심의 자유, 종교활동의 자유, 종교의 다양성 보장, 종교적 평등권, 정교분리의 원칙, 국교의 금지 등으로서, 이는 18세기 후반의 청교도적 회중파, 자유 교회 복음주의, 계몽주의 정치사상, 그리고 공화주의 등의 사상을 반영하는 것이었다. 그런데 오늘날 국가에 의한 인권의 침해뿐만 아니라, 종교 또는 문화의 이름으로 인권 침해가 정당화되고 있는 것이 현실이다. 법외 영역으로서의 종교의 권위를 인정함으로써 불평등 등의 인권 침해가 방임되기도 하고, 특히 여성의 인권이 위축되어 왔다. 전통적인 인권법은 종교의 자유와 문화적 전통을 존중하는 입장이었고, 종교 공동체 안에서의 구성원의 권리에는 무관심하여 온 면이 있다. 또한 종래의 법학은 주로 종교활동의 자유와 종교간 또는 종교인과 비종교인간의 평등에 관심을 기울여 왔고 종교 공동체 안에서의 구성원간의 평등에는 소홀해 온 면이 있다. 그러나 현대인들은 종교 공동체 내에서도 민주주의가 관철되도록 끊임없이 변화를 요구해 왔고, 공적 영역만이 아니라 종교, 문화, 그리고 가정 등의 사적 영역에서의 합리적 이성, 평등, 자유 등을 추구하고 있다. 한편 성, 출산, 결혼 등에 대한 신념과 관련하여, 자신의 신념에 반하는 행동 자체는 아니지만, 간접적으로 연루되게 하는 행동을 함으로써 결과적으로 자신의 신념에 반하는 행위를 하지 않을 권리를 “연루된 양심적 주장”이라고 표현하기도 한다. 그러나 이와 같은 주장에 대한 “특별 배려적 수용” 자체가 이와 무관한 일반 시민들의 존엄감을 심각하게 해칠 수 있는 특징이 있다. 2014년의 미연방 대법원 판례 Hobby Lobby Stores 판결의 의미는, 개인만이 아니라 영리기업의 종교의 자유도 보호되어야 한다는 점과, 타인의 종교적 신념에 근거한 의료보험조건 미충족을 이유로 의료 서비스 제공을 거부하는 등 피해를 주어서는 안된다는 점을 밝힌 점이다. 그리고 2018년의 Masterpiece Cakeshop 판례에서 미연방 대법원은, 법은 동성애자와 동성커플의 시민권행사를 보호하여야 할 뿐만 아니라 동성커플에 반대하는 이들의 종교 내지 철학적 신념을 보호하여야 한다고 판시하였는데, 종교적 이유를 들어 “공적 특별 배려법”의 적용 면제를 인정하면서도, 이로 인하여 성소수자 등의 공개된 시장으로의 접근을 제한하거나 제3자에게 낙인을 찍게 하는 등의 피해를 입게 해서는 안된다는 점을 분명히 하였다. 이와 같이 미연방 대법원은 종교적 이유를 근거로 하여 차별금지법 등으로부터의 면제를 주장하는 경우의 가이드라인을 제공하였고, 향후 입법의 방향을 제시하였다고 평가될 수 있으나, 이에 대한 논란은 계속될 것이라는 전망이다. 그리고 낙태와 피임등과 연계한 의료혜택의 거부, 낙태과 출산 보조기술, 그리고 성소수자들과 관련된 수 많은 법률들에 시사하는 바가 크다. 다만 현재의 보수적인 미연방 대법원은 아직 제3자 피해의 원칙이 무엇을 의미하는지, 어느 정도가 허용될 수 없는 피해인지를 밝히지 않고 있다. 그리고 2020년의 Little Sisters 판례에서는, 아예 “제3자 피해의 원칙”에 대한 어떠한 언급도 하지 않았는데, 이는 종교의 자유를 보다 보호하는 방향이라고 읽힐 수 있겠다. 그러나 제3자 피해의 원칙은 앞으로도 계속 쟁점화될 것이고, 누구에게 가해지는 어떠한 피해인가, 그리고 어떠한 권리를 침해받았는지가 문제될 것이라는 전망이다. 결론적으로, 종교적 신념의 보호와 성소수자들의 평등권 등이 충돌하는 상황에서 “특별 배려를 할 경우의 제3자에 대한 피해”개념은, 우리나라의 판례와 입법의 방향과 해석에 있어서도 유용한 참고자료로서 활용될 수 있을 것이다. 종교의 자유에 대한 보호가 타인의 기본권을 침해하는 상황에서는, 종교의 자유에 근거한 행동의 자유가 제한될 수 있음을 알 수 있고, 이로 인하여 제3자가 입게 될 피해의 정도가 어떠한지에 따라 종교의 자유의 인정범위는 달라지게 될 것이다.

SMALL CLAIM COURT : PRINCIPLE CONCRETIZATION IN LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT

The purpose of this research is to examine the provisions of civil procedural law in settling a lawsuit, to know the form of simple, fast, and low-cost concretization in simple lawsuit settlement. The research method uses the research object of simple, fast, and low-cost concretization in the settlement of a simple claim, normative juridical approach, the type of data used in this study is secondary data, which is sourced from the literature. Secondary data consists of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, legal material collection techniques carried out by literature and the internet, while the data analysis method is analyzed descriptively qualitatively. The results show that the provisions of civil procedural law in resolving claims in court so far have been using the basis of HIR, which do not differentiate between complicated and simple case examinations so that the time for settlement is the same. The process starting from submitting/registering a lawsuit, determining the day of trial by the head of the panel of judges, the parties being summoned appropriately, the trial, evidence to the verdict took a long time, namely 6 months (SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR No. 6 of 1992), so the Supreme Court issued SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR No. 2 of 2014 which provides a time limit for completing the case of five (5) months. The simple, fast, and low-cost principles of concretizing a small claim court can be seen in the settlement stage. Settlement of a simple lawsuit is divided into 4 (four) stages, namely: 1), preliminary stage, 2) stage of case examination, 3). The objection request stage and 4), the simple action decision stage. This simple lawsuit settlement process should take a maximum of 25 (twenty-five) days. The simple principle is embodied in the shortened settlement process mechanism, the fast principle is realized within 25 days of completion, a peace that does not use the provisions of Supreme Court rules No.1 of 2016, while the principle of low cost is realized from a simple settlement mechanism, will be affected by the cost of the case.

원청은 하청노동조합의 단체교섭의 상대방으로서 사용자인가? - 택배노동조합사건에 대한 중앙노동위원회 판정을 중심으로 -

In a case whereby the deliverymen’s labor union (“subcontractor”) demanded collective bargaining against the company (“contractor”), the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) cited “de facto governing” as a ground for judging the contractor an employer and thus a legitimate party in collective bargaining. This decision had significant repercussions because it raised a controversial issue: whether the legal principles behind the 2010 ruling of the Supreme Court, which expanded the notion of an employer for certain affairs (e.g., governing, intervention) among various forms of unfair labor practices, may be further expanded to judging the status of a contractor as an employer and a legitimate party in collective bargaining.<BR> According to the NLRC, in a case where a labor union consisting of subcontractors who lack either an explicit or an implicit labor contract with the contractor requests collective bargaining against the contractor, the contractor may be deemed an employer who is burdened with an obligation for collective bargaining, citing “de facto governing” as a legal ground.<BR> I argue that the contractor is not an employer or a legitimate party in collective bargaining against the subcontractors’ labor union, and this argument applies to the problems and criticisms surrounding the abovementioned NLRC case.<BR> First, identifying a legitimate party for collective bargaining means identifying a party that can collectively form or revise provisions of a labor contract through collective bargaining within a framework of collective autonomy. In comparison, identifying an “employer” in unfair labor practices―that is, a follower of a rule that bans unfair labor practices―means identifying a party that breached the rule of ensuring three basic labor rights or a fair labor–management relationship. An employer, according to the Trade Union And Labor Relations Adjustment Act, is a legitimate party in collective bargaining in principle, and they should be distinguished from an employer according to regulations on unfair labor practices. The abovementioned NLRC case fails to make this distinction, deeming an employer in collective bargaining and an employer in unfair labor practices the same.<BR> Another problem is that in identifying an employer as a legitimate party in collective bargaining, the NLRC expanded the notion of “de facto governing”―a legal ground for the H Heavy Industries case ruling―which saw the employers as inflictors of unfair labor practices, such as governing/intervention. Flawed logic is found in that the NLRC regarded the contractor as an employer and thus a legitimate party in collective bargaining despite the absence of a contractual relationship with the subcontractor, which is needed to be seen as an employer in collective bargaining.<BR> Furthermore, it is problematic that the NLRC only quoted a court ruling Supreme Court 2010. 3. 25. 2007du8881<BR> that admitted the status of a contractor as an employer regarding unfair labor practices of governing/intervention while overlooking court rulings Supreme Court 2008.9.11. 2006da40935 and others<BR> that denied the status of a contractor as a legitimate party in collective bargaining when it recognized the contractor as a legitimate party in collective bargaining without making a distinction between an employer as a legitimate party in collective bargaining and an employer as an inflictor of an unfair labor practice. To establish grounds for such a decision, it is necessary to introduce Supreme Court rulings that have denied the status of a contractor as a legitimate party in collective bargaining and analyze them critically. Lacking such effort, the NLRC decision is an a priori judgment that exposes a bias stemming from distorted information.<BR> Lastly, the NLRC decision was made on the basis of “de facto governing,” and as such, it suffers from all the legal problems of that theory.

2021/35 Supreme Court rules on constitutionality of Workplace Relations Commission (IR)

2021/35 Supreme Court rules on constitutionality of Workplace Relations Commission (IR)

Constitutional controversies in the subnational democratization of Mexico, 1994–2021

AbstractAfter the 1994 judicial reform, the Mexican Supreme Court has transformed into a more genuine enforcer of law and the final arbiter in an increasing number of disputes over power and resources between different levels and branches of government. Constitutional controversies have become an essential legal resource enabling subnational actors to defend the autonomy and jurisdiction guaranteed in the Constitution. The number of constitutional controversies filed by municipalities and subnational actors before the Court increased considerably in the 1995–2021 period, reaching nearly 2500 intergovernmental disputes of exclusive jurisdiction. In the context of growing political fragmentation, this judicialization process has motivated subnational actors to appeal regularly to the Supreme Court to act as a counterweight, resulting in an increasing influence in the national political arena and even in the implementation of public policies. With its rulings, a nonrepresentative body is regulating coexistence among elected political actors and institutionalizing new rules of behavior. The Supreme Court's rulings on fundamental cases that are still pending should reveal whether the 2021 judicial reform will enhance judicial independence.

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1's New Clothes: How the Tennessee Supreme Court's Opinion in State v. Brown Limited the Inherent Authority of Trial Courts to Correct Illegal Sentences by Overlooking the Plain Language of Rule 36.1 and the "Jurisprudential Context" from Which Rule 36.1 Developed

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1's New Clothes: How the Tennessee Supreme Court's Opinion in State v. Brown Limited the Inherent Authority of Trial Courts to Correct Illegal Sentences by Overlooking the Plain Language of Rule 36.1 and the "Jurisprudential Context" from Which Rule 36.1 Developed

Risk Assessment and Post-Release Recidivism in a Sample of Juvenile Homicide Offenders.

Given recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings regarding the constitutionality of juveniles who received mandated life sentences, questions have arisen in the field of criminology regarding how these offenders will adjust if someday released. Risk scores were calculated for 59 male juvenile homicide offenders (JHOs) based upon the eight domains in the Youth Level of Supervision/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) and used to examine recidivism among the 48 JHOs who were released. Sample subjects were charged as adults for murder and attempted murder in the 1980s, convicted, and sentenced to adult prison. Chi-square analyses were used to assess the relationship between risk score category and two measures of recidivism, which were general arrests and violent offenses. Results indicated risk scores failed to predict both general and violent recidivism. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Pengaturan Larangan Plastik Sekali Pakai: Kritik Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 29 P/Hum/2019 Dari Perspektif Teori Dan Hukum Perundang-Undangan

This article discusses the Supreme Court Decision Number 29 P/HUM/2019 on the Judicial Review of Article 7 and Article 9 paragraph (1) of Governor of Bali Regulation No. 97 of 2018 on Restrictions on the Generation of Single-use Plastic Waste. The Supreme Court (MA) rejected the applicant's application with a dedicendi ratio that the a quo Governor's Regulation was justifiable as it was based on the principle of decentralization and the impact of single-use plastic waste that pollutes or damages the environment. The legal issues highlighted relate to how the relationship between legal products in the form of legislation and regulations should be, as well as whether the Supreme Court's judicial considerations in its decisions are appropriate according to the law. The research method is done with conceptual and case study approaches. The results of the study that: First, legal products in the form of regulations are an elaboration of legislation, so that regulations may not create new legal norms. Second, the Supreme Court's judicial opinion is incorrect as it does not distinguish between legislation and regulation products, so there is an impression that everything can be regulated by regional legal products provided that it is in accordance with the regional conditions. In addition, the act of limiting Human Rights is only carried out through legislative products in the form of legislation (laws).

Certiorari in Important Cases

The Supreme Court has wide discretion to choose the cases it will decide. These choices matter, as they both shape and are shaped by our national social, political, and economic discourse. So how does the Court exercise its discretion? The Supreme Court’s rules explain that it may hear any case “important” enough for it to decide. Unsurprisingly, commentators have criticized this standard as “murky,” “cryptic,” “hopelessly indeterminate,” and even “intentionally vague.” But the Court has, in fact, said more about how it decides whether to grant review. We simply must look past the terse text of the Supreme Court Rules and to the Court’s merits opinions. These decisions sometimes offer a brief yet informative description of the decision to grant review. In these oft-overlooked statements, the Court sometimes suggests that review is founded on concerns for comity among the branches, or aimed at structuring intrajudicial authority, among other rationales. Viewed in aggregate, these statements are suggestive of trends in the exercise of the Court’s docket-setting discretion. In this article, I present a text and data analysis of thousands of Supreme Court opinions describing the reason for granting review, collectively illuminating which cases are important enough to merit certiorari. This view into the Court’s agenda-setting process is revealing. We can begin to discern which cases earn the Court’s attention, and how the Court’s priorities change over time. I find, for example, that the Court’s docket shifts in response to large events (e.g., depressions and wars) and to significant political developments (e.g., landmark legislation). And, perhaps more concerning, I also find that individual appointments shape the Court’s docket. The Court should thus better explain its decisions to grant review in the mode of a common law of certiorari. Doing so can improve the interbranch dialogue over judicial reform and instill greater confidence in our Supreme Court.

The Interpretation of the Element ""Where the Compulsory Execution Must Be Performed in a Foreign Country"" under Paragraph 2, Article 523 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure: An Analysis and Comment on the Taiwan Supreme Court's Ruling Year-2020-Tai-Sheng-Tzi-No. 804

The Interpretation of the Element ""Where the Compulsory Execution Must Be Performed in a Foreign Country"" under Paragraph 2, Article 523 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure: An Analysis and Comment on the Taiwan Supreme Court's Ruling Year-2020-Tai-Sheng-Tzi-No. 804

Danish Supreme Court Rules against the Taxpayer in Its Third Transfer Pricing Case

On 26 April 2021, the Danish Supreme Court rendered its third judgment in a transfer pricing (TP) case. As opposed to the first two TP judgments from the Danish Supreme Court (the Microsoft case and the Adecco case), the tax authorities prevailed in this third case against the privately held company Tetra Pak.

Generative Dynamics of Supreme Court Citations: Analysis with a New Statistical Network Model

AbstractThe significance and influence of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions derive in large part from opinions’ roles as precedents for future opinions. A growing body of literature seeks to understand what drives the use of opinions as precedents through the study of Supreme Court case citation patterns. We raise two limitations of existing work on Supreme Court citations. First, dyadic citations are typically aggregated to the case level before they are analyzed. Second, citations are treated as if they arise independently. We present a methodology for studying citations between Supreme Court opinions at the dyadic level, as a network, that overcomes these limitations. This methodology—the citation exponential random graph model, for which we provide user-friendly software—enables researchers to account for the effects of case characteristics and complex forms of network dependence in citation formation. We then analyze a network that includes all Supreme Court cases decided between 1950 and 2015. We find evidence for dependence processes, including reciprocity, transitivity, and popularity. The dependence effects are as substantively and statistically significant as the effects of exogenous covariates, indicating that models of Supreme Court citations should incorporate both the effects of case characteristics and the structure of past citations.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's Expropriation Exception Does Not Extend to Domestic Takings

In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a country's taking of property from its own nationals does not fall within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exception for “rights in property taken in violation of international law.” The case involved a claim that Nazi officials coerced a consortium of three art firms owned by Jewish residents of Germany to sell a collection of “medieval relics and devotional objects known as the Welfenschatz” to Prussia for “approximately one-third of their value.” The plaintiffs—descendants of the members of the consortium—argued that the coerced sale constituted genocide, thus bringing their claim within the FSIA exception. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that “the expropriation exception is best read as referencing the international law of expropriation rather than of human rights” and that international law does not bar a state's taking of the property of its own nationals. The Court declined to reach Germany's alternative argument that international comity required dismissal of the case, and it vacated and remanded a companion case, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, that also posed the comity question.

Testimony Before the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States

I have been asked to testify about “the Court’s role in our constitutional system,” in particular its role in resolving “major social and political issues” and proposals for reforms affecting judicial review of legislative enactments such as jurisdiction stripping, supermajority voting requirements, or congressional overrides. Recognizing that this Commission already comprises leading experts on these subjects, I will limit my comments to three discrete points that the Commission might find useful in its deliberations. I will discuss (1) the importance of different methods of constitutional interpretation to the Court’s role in our society, (2) the concept of “departmentalism,” which already exists, or can exist, within our present constitutional system, and by which the importance of the Supreme Court might be diminished, and (3) a proposal for eighteen-year, staggered term limits for Justices. The upshot of my remarks is that the current Supreme Court, if it were to follow a genuinely “originalist” approach to constitutional interpretation, is not in need of reform because on many controversial social and political questions the Constitution leaves the answers to the democratic process, and on other questions an originalist approach does not reliably lead to results that only one political party favors. Recognizing, however, that originalism might nevertheless be controversial, I suggest reinvigorating the concept of departmentalism in our political and constitutional culture. Departmentalism recognizes that the Supreme Court has the final say on interpretations of law in cases and controversies that come before it, and that its judgments in such cases are binding on the parties. The political branches need not follow the Supreme Court’s reasoning as a political rule, however, at least not until good faith requires accepting that a constitutional question has been fully settled. (And a single Supreme Court opinion does not, or ought not, settle all such questions.) Neither the argument on originalism nor departmentalism requires any affirmative action on the part of this Commission. To the extent these proposals are not satisfying, however, I also explore the possibility of imposing eighteen-year, staggered term limits on Supreme Court Justices. The National Constitution Center recently commissioned three teams — progressive, libertarian, and conservative — to draft new Constitutions for the United States. Team conservative, which I led, proposed eighteen-year, staggered term limits, as did the progressive team. Libertarian scholars have also endorsed this idea. In other words, eighteen-year, staggered term limits are a potential reform that persons of all backgrounds and political persuasions might support. The proposal would likely require a constitutional amendment, and it is hardly a perfect solution; indeed, in my view it is an unnecessary one. But it is probably the most plausible and politically achievable reform.