Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The plaintiffs were disabled Tennesseans who could not access the upper floors in state courthouses. They sued in Federal Court, arguing that since Tennessee was disallowing them public services for the reason that their disabilities, it was infringing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Tennessee argued that the Eleventh Amendment banned the suit, and filed a motion to dismiss the case. It relied chiefly on Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001), in which the Supreme Court held that Congress had, in endorsing certain provisions of the ADA, unconstitutionally repealed the supreme immunity of the States by letting people sue the States for discrimination on the foundation of disability. Garrett had held that Congress had not met the congruent-and-proportional test, in that it had not collected enough proof of discrimination on the basis of disability to give good reason for the repeal of sovereign immunity.
In Lane, the Supreme Court split 5-4. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority ruled that Congress...
Additionally, the remedy Congress put into place was fitting and relative, for the reason that the reasonable accommodations mandated by the ADA were not excessively troublesome and uneven to the harm. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, along with Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia filed dissents arguing that requiring access for disabled persons to all public buildings could not at all be measured as a way of putting in force the Fourteenth Amendment.
References
GONZALES V. OREGON (04-623) 546 U.S. 243 (2006) 368 F.3d 1118. Retrieved March 26,
2011, from Web site: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-623.ZS.html
TENNESSEE V. LANE (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004) 315 F.3d 680. Retrieved March 26,
2011, from Web site: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html
For example, he voted to require that schools utilize resources to support religions activities if they designate resources to non-religious activities (Board of Education. v. Mergens, 1990). Further, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) called for vouchers to be given to families of low socioeconomic standing for both religious and secular educational institutions. This being said, Rehnquist was not able to completely disrupt the social change that Warren had started in
However, this Court also recognizes that mental illness oftentimes differs from other immutable characteristics, such as mental retardation and age, in that a defendant oftentimes has the ability to control mental illness through medical interventions. While there is tremendous evidence of Panetti's deteriorated mental state, there is very little evidence to support Panetti's assertions that he was insane at the time of the murders. Though there are serious questions regarding
U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Supreme Court Decision Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) that "forcible abduction of a foreign national does not prohibit his trial in a U.S. Court" dealt a body blow to international law, the implications of which are still being felt. Small wonder, therefore, that the Court's majority (6-3) decision was considered unjust by international human rights organizations and even by three of Supreme Court's own
Other modern-era lines of Supreme Court decisions regulate all major areas of law enforcement against citizens and provide national standards that require compliance in all 50 states. One could argue that certain areas of search and seizure laws still allow police conduct that violates those valuable underlying principles. In particular, the Drayton decision (122 S. Ct. 2105, 2002) rejected the suggestion that ordinary citizens are not likely to believe they are free
Examples of offenses that are based on constitutional endowments of right contain tax evasion, possessing illegal substances and conspiring to violate civil rights. Courts have specified on the whole a wide explanation to the Commerce Clause authority, allowing Congress to create a federal offense of many widespread law crimes such as kidnapping or murder if state outline are fractious during commission of the crime and such as misappropriation and
Baker reviewed three landmark Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment and concluded that the death penalty is capriciously imposed on Black defendants and thus serves the extra-legal function of preserving majority group interests. He viewed discrimination in capital sentencing as deliberate and identified the primary reasons why Black defendants with white victims have been denied fairness in capital sentencing. These are prosecutorial discretion in the selective prosecution of capital