Majority opinion

About: Majority opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4107 publications have been published within this topic receiving 54845 citations. The topic is also known as: opinion of the court.

Securities Law in the Roberts Court: Agenda or Indifference?

Abstract: Historically, securities law has not been a high priority for the Supreme Court. The first six years of the Roberts Court, however, suggest an upsurge of interest in the federal securities laws. The Roberts Court's average of two cases per year marks a significant increase from the Rehnquist Court’s average. These numbers are deceptive. Analysis of the opinions deciding these cases – and more importantly, the issues debated by the justices – suggests that the Court is not interested in the substance of the securities laws or the policies that animate them. Instead, securities law serves as a backdrop for debates over statutory interpretation and the relationship of the judiciary to the administrative state. Only in the area of securities class actions is there an inkling of engagement with the specific subject matter. Notwithstanding charges that the Roberts Court is “pro business,” the Court has not charted a consistent course favoring corporate defendants. Instead, the Court has demonstrated a bias toward the status quo, resisting attempts to both restrict and expand – the reach of Rule 10b-5 class actions.

That Godless Court? : Supreme Court Decisions on Church-State Relationships

Abstract: The religion clauses of the First Amendment, which seem simple and clear, have been and continue to be controversial in their application. Church-state issues have never been more complex, controversial, and divisive than they are today. In this helpful and instructive book, Ronald B. Flowers explains clearly and concisely the intricacies and implications of Supreme Court decisions in the volatile area of church-state relations. This is an ideal primer for those Americans who have listened to the debates about what the Supreme Court has and has not said about the relationship between church and state, and where the boundaries between the two have been eroded. It is also ideal for use in the classroom, specifically in undergraduate courses in religion and the court, introductions to U.S. constitutional law, constitutional law and politics, and the Supreme Court. The book is also a helpful tool for pastors, clarifying contemporary church-state issues that impact their churches and parishioners directly and indirectly.

The chief justices' self assignment of majority opinions in salient cases

Abstract: This study examines the extent to which the chief justices on the United States Supreme Court self-assign the majority opinion in salient cases. The period covered is 1801 until the summer of 1989. I discovered that the chief justices as a group self-assigned 35% of the majority opinions in salient cases. Some chief justices, however, self-assigned at a much higher rate than others. The range extends from Marshall (89%) to Fuller (15). Two senior associate justices— Justice Brennan and the first Justice Harlan—were more advantaged in opinion assignments in salient cases than Chief Justices Rehnquist and Fuller. I also discovered that the chief justices were somewhat more likely to self-assign when the final vote was unanimous.

Amnesties in International Law: The Experience of the Special Court for Sierra Leone

Abstract: The Special Court for Sierra Leone, a hybrid criminal tribunal established to try persons accused of serious crimes during the conflict in Sierra Leone, has recently commenced its judicial operations. Several of the preliminary issues raised by various defendants have required the Court to examine the validity of the amnesty granted to combatants by the Lome Peace Agreement and the amnesty's impact upon the Court's jurisdiction to try the defendants. This article examines the decisions of the Court on the amnesty issue and evaluates the jurisprudence of the Court with reference to the current status of amnesties in international law.

Planned Parenthood v Casey: The Impact of the New Undue Burden Standard on Reproductive Health Care

Abstract: The recent US Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey , by changing the legal standard by which restrictions on abortion are evaluated, will have a profound effect on access to reproductive health care in the United States. This article reviews the Pennsylvania antiabortion restrictions at issue in Casey and discusses the ways in which the new constitutional standard fundamentally weakens the legal protections previously afforded women and physicians in the 1973 case, Roe v Wade . While the majority opinion reaffirmed a woman's right to choose an abortion, the opinion opens the door to a multitude of new restrictive abortion laws, which diminish, and in some cases completely block, a woman's ability to exercise that right. The effect of weakened legal protection will fall most heavily on young, poor, minority, and rural women, who will be unable to overcome obstacles imposed by mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, and parental notification requirements. The restrictions are also likely to exacerbate the shortage of physicians providing abortion services by making the procedure more costly and the providers' jobs more dangerous. Finally, the medical community can help to ensure women access to comprehensive and competent reproductive health care. ( JAMA . 1993;269:2249-2257)