Showing papers on "Supreme Court Decisions published in 1982"

The effects of induced abortion on subsequent reproduction

Abstract: Legalized induced abortion, a worldwide phenomenon of major proportions, became a public health issue in the United States during the past decade. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of 1973 declared restrictive abortion laws unconstitutional, the number of reported legal abortions in this country has steadily increased, exceeding one million in 1975 and rising to 1,554,000 in 1980.1

Ways of Criticizing the Court

Abstract: Critics have attacked Supreme Court decisions not only for their substance, but also for their structure and inconsistency. Professor Easterbrook responds to these critics by arguing, first, that the increasing caseload of the judiciary, coupled with the techniques of Supreme Court case selection, makes more fractured decisions inevitable. Second, Professor Easterbrook applies Arrow's Theorem to show that it is impossible for critics to demand consistent decisions from the Supreme Court without requiring it to sacrifice its essential institutional nature.

Trial courts‘ responses to supreme court policy changes

Abstract: This is an exploratory study focusing on the response of federal district courts to Supreme Court changes in three policy areas: economic regulation, civil liberties, and criminal justice. An analysis of federal district court opinions published in the Federal Supplement before and after the Supreme Court decisions announcing the policy changes indicated that opinion-writing patterns of federal district judges changed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's new direction. Further study of the federal district courts' role in the policy process is recommended and suggestions for such research are made.

The Policy-Making Role of the Courts of Appeals in Northern School Desegretation: Ambiguity and Judicial Policy-Making:

Abstract: rT nHE PURPOSE of this research is to examine the decisions made by the courts of appeals in the important policy area of Northern school desegregation in order to advance our understanding of the courts' role in judicial policy-making. Specifically, we concentrate on how the courts of appeals have responded to the uncertainty and ambiguity found in the policy pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In doing so, we explore the relevant legal standards that these courts have adopted to determine when school officials have acted with discriminatory purpose. In turn, we also focus on how the Supreme Court has reacted to the standards employed by the courts of appeals. Here the focus represents a significant departure from earlier studies on courts and school desegregation where the objectives were mostly twofold: (1) to explain lower courts' (Vines, 1963; Steamer, 1960) efforts to enforce the mandates of Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and subsequent decisions; and (2) to explain the voting behavior of lower court judges in terms of social background variables (Giles and Walker, 1975). Broadly speaking, except for Peltason (1971), these studies did not seek to explain the policy-making role of the courts of appeals; nor did they seek to explain the relationship that might exist between policy pronouncements of the Supreme Court and those of the courts of appeals. While not ignoring the policy-making activities of the courts of appeals, the overriding concern of these studies was to emphasize compliance or non-compliance with Supreme Court decisions. For the most part, the scholarly emphasis was to document the movement of litigation toward or away from the Supreme Court. But, as we know, most federal litigation is terminated in the courts of appeals (Abraham, 1980: 173; Howard, Jr., 1973). Even so, this research enhanced our understanding of the role of the courts of appeals in the school segregation controversy and the political system more generally. However, due to the regional focus of the previous research and the apparent variations in the complexions of Northern and Southern school segregation, what we know about the behavior of the courts of appeals in the South may not hold true for the Northern phase of school desegregation. The major purpose of our efforts here is to analyze how selected circuits' of the appellate court have responded to the ambiguity in Supreme

Supreme Court Decisions on Mental Health: A Review

Abstract: Since the late 1960s mental health advocates have filed numerous lawsuits against mental health institutions in an effort to narrow the standards for civil commitment, improve the care of patients, and define patients' rights. While many of the lawsuits were successful in attaining these goals at the district and appellate court levels, review by the Supreme Court generally has resulted in decisions blunting the lower court rulings. The high court has rejected broadly worded lower court decisions on commitment laws, standards of proof in commitment hearings, and patients' rights. The court also has upheld the traditional reliance on decision-making by medical professionals. The author describes a number of these cases and their decisions and concludes that cases now before the Supreme Court very likely will result in decisions that strike a balance between the needs of the patients and those of treatment staff.

Parent versus child: H.L. v. Matheson and the new abortion litigation.

Abstract: Paper examining the constitutionality of statutes that require notification of the parents of minors who seek abortions. Beginning with an historical analysis of recent Supreme Court decisions bearing on a minors right to privacy in abortion decisions a detailed examination of the H.L. v. Matheson decision is presented. The Court in Matheson approved of the parental notification requirement with respect to minors who do not assert exemption from the statutory mandate; it also indicated willingness to find the same statute unconstitutional as it applies to minors who believe that notice would not be in their best interests or that are sufficiently mature to make the decision independently. Interests likely to be asserted by states in defending future parental notification laws include promoting parental authority and discouraging teenage sexual activity. However the paper asserts that parental notification requirements present an unprecedented interference in intrafamily communication and relationships and may have serious consequences to the physical and emotional health of pregnant teenagers. Despite the states interests the law cannot force interpersonal relationships to develop or override a minors right to privacy. Future questions for the Court are which standards should be applied to determine whether a minor is mature for purposes of possible exemption from notification requirements and whether the requirement will be upheld for mature minors. The decision in Matheson will be of little effect since minors can presently claim exemption from coverage due to special circumstances an issue not yet litigated.

Development Rights to Privacy and Independent Decision-Making

Abstract: This paper considers the historical aspects of parental autonomy in decision making for children, current legal issues regarding children's rights, and relates them to developmental criteria rather than chronological age. It anticipates future problems as it translates these rights to developmental age. Benchmark court decisions are cited and the contrast between the reasoning in these decisions and the either/or decisions the law must make are matched against considerations of the degree of maturity for independent decision making, and the obligation of parents and society to help the evolution of this capacity.

Principles Governing the Interpretation and Exercise of Article v pOwers

Abstract: A* MENDMENTS to the United States Constitution have been few and far between. Since its ratification in 1789, the Constitution has undergone only twenty-six amendments. Ten of these, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791. Article V of the Constitution provides for two alternatives for proposing amendments.' Either the Congress, upon two-thirds of both houses deeming it necessary, or a Convention, called by Congress upon receipt of applications from two-thirds of the states, may propose amendments. All twenty-six amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Congress. Although several applications for a Convention have been submitted by various states2 the necessary two-thirds to effect the calling has at no time been obtained.3 Disagreement among constitutional scholars as regards the role of Congress and the states in calling a Convention may, in part, be attributable to the desuetude of this procedure. Moreover, this issue has never been presented to the United States Supreme Court for adjudication. Consequently, questions concerning the calling of a Convention have yet to be answered authoritatively. But this is true only in regard to the particulars. Broad principles governing the amendment process in general are discernible in several Supreme Court decisions dealing with Article V. Furthermore, the historical evidence which is available serves to provide some indication of the Framers' intentions as regards the constitutional function of the states, the Congress, and the Convention, respectively, in the process for proposing amendments. These two threads, relevant Supreme Court decisions and historical data, when pulled through the eye of common sense, seam the fabric on which the details of embroidery must be stitched.

Vitek v. Jones: transfer of prisoners to mental institutions.

Abstract: In Vitek v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the due process clause as requiring that certain procedures be followed before transferring prisoners to mental institutions. This Note analyzes the Court's reasons for concluding that the existing transfer procedures embodied in the state's commitment statutes infringed on the prisoner's liberty interests and, therefore, were constitutionally inadequate. It finds that not only was one of the grounds used by the Court to find a constitutionally protected liberty; inappropriate, but the calculus that the Court employed in mandating additional procedures was incorrect. This Note suggests alterative methods of holding the statutes unconstitutional, methods that would not lead to markedly different procedures for committing prisoners and civilians. Finally, the Note examines the procedures that the Court actually prescribed and discusses their implementation.

Scientific Expert Testimony in Criminal Courts

Abstract: This paper reviews the impact of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on criminal investigation techniques related to the use of forensic sciences in the investigation process. This includes a discussion of three particular aspects of scientific technology: (1)the relative significance of testimony based upon the examination of the physical evidence and the eyewitness, (2) the qualifications of the expert witness and (3) the provision of forensic science resources to the defendant. It is suggested that for qualifying a scientist as an expert witness, standards concerning the qualifications established for membership in professional societies should be used as a criteria and legislation requiring minimum qualifications should be considered. It is also proposed that the criminal justice system should provide defendants with equal forensic science services.