Showing papers on "Supreme Court Decisions published in 2021"
TL;DR: In this article, the authors employed a network content analysis method to examine the involvement of actors in forest fire cases based on Supreme Court decisions, complemented by several reputable online news sources such as kompas.com, detik.com and tribun.com.
Abstract: Forest fires in Indonesia are of a local, national, and global concern, which is why the activities of local actors have emerged as a new problem in Indonesia, especially in Kalimantan. The current study employed a network content analysis method to examine the involvement of actors in forest fire cases based on Supreme Court decisions, complemented by several reputable online news sources such as kompas.com, detik.com, and tribun.com. By examining the cases, the actors involved were able to be identified as key actors, contest setters, and subject actors. Key actors, referring to companies and landowners, were found to have high correlations between one another. Moreover, key actors were observed to be involved in providing funds for land clearing or burning, yet they remained legally untouchable. Meanwhile, contest setters—permanent employees—were found to be the most involved in land burning/clearing, and they were often convicted in the Supreme Court rulings as they were merely commoners, farmers, and jobseekers in need of cash. Nevertheless, the subject actors, i.e., jobseekers and farm workers, were seen to have a weak relationship with key actors in the Supreme Court rulings, particularly in terms of forest burning and its operational funding.
16 citations
TL;DR: The fetal heartbeat law in Texas as mentioned in this paper allows private individuals to bring civil lawsuits not just against physicians but also against anyone who "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, regardless of whether the person knew the abortion was unlawful".
Abstract: Thirteen states have enacted so-called “fetal heartbeat” laws banning abortions once embryotic cardiac activity can be detected. Courts have enjoined their enforcement as unconstitutional. However, on September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas fetal heartbeat law, which virtually eliminates access to abortion services. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB8 into law on May 19th, with an effective date of September 1st. The law essentially prohibits abortion after 6 weeks of gestational age, before most women know they are pregnant.
Texas’ fetal heartbeat law has a unique feature. It empowers private individuals to bring civil lawsuits not just against physicians but also against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion,” regardless of whether the person knew the abortion was unlawful. It includes “reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance.” The language is so broad that it could cover a friend, clergyman, or even a driver who counsels a woman or transports her to an abortion clinic. SB8 goes further, imposing liability if the person even “intends to engage in the conduct.” Any citizen may bring a civil lawsuit and, if successful, violators are required to pay damages of $10,000 or more for each abortion, along with costs and attorney’s fees. SB8 therefore leaves the law’s enforcement not to state officials, but to private individuals, who are rewarded with damages.
13 citations
TL;DR: The Supreme Court and Pandemic Controls In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Supreme Court temporarily enjoined New York’s limits on in-person religious worship.
Abstract: The Supreme Court and Pandemic Controls In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Supreme Court temporarily enjoined New York’s limits on in-person religious worship. The decision could h...
5 citations
Book•
05 Nov 2021
TL;DR: The Nutshell as discussed by the authors summarizes significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including the latest Confrontation Clause cases; additional leading cases; forefront expert and scientific evidence developments; and principal schools of evidentiary thought.
Abstract: The newest (restyled) version of the Federal Rules of Evidence, reproduced in the Appendix, are the anchor of this single-volume Nutshell, with some state variations noted where important. The text summarizes significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including the latest Confrontation Clause cases; additional leading cases; forefront expert and scientific evidence developments; and principal schools of evidentiary thought. Includes practical implementation as well as scholarly approaches, and pays attention to the litigation process as a whole and interdisciplinary cross-pollination where helpful.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the likelihood of parole in one state for a population of candidates whose ages ranged from 14 to 21 at the time of the crime. But they did not consider the age of the offender.
Abstract: Based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognizing adolescence, we examined the likelihood of parole in one state for a population of candidates whose ages ranged from 14 to 21 at time of offense. L...
2 citations
TL;DR: LAW-U as discussed by the authors is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot that gives legal guidance to survivors of sexual violence by recommending the most relevant Supreme Court decisions to the survivors' situations.
Abstract: Sexual violence is a severe and chronic occurrence around the world that has not been resolved. The stigmatized nature of sexual violence has forced victims and survivors to accept prejudiced accusations cultivated from discriminatory norms when they are never at fault nor responsible for such violations against their sexuality. LAW-U is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot that gives legal guidance to survivors of sexual violence by recommending the most relevant Supreme Court decisions to the survivors’ situations. In Thai, “LAW-U” − pronounced similarly to “ ” − means “I will wait for you”, which signifies the chatbot’s unconditional support to the user. 182 Thai Supreme Court cases of sexual violence, relating to Sections 276, 277, 278, and 279 of the Criminal Code, were used to develop Natural Language Processing (NLP) pipelines for LAW-U. Legal experts then generated mock-up dialogs from Supreme Court decisions which became the conversations used to train LAW-U. The computation of the similarity scores and the calculation of percentages of common keywords and keywords’ synonyms were completed to increase the model’s accuracy. When applying the model to the hold-out testing dataset, the accuracy was 88.89% for an exact match between the user’s input and the Supreme Court case − this confirmed that LAW-U was ready for real-life application. LAW-U’s unique design hopes to act as a precedent for other works at home and abroad to perpetuate awareness of sexual violence and eliminate any tolerance against these crimes by empowering sexual violence victims and survivors to reaffirm their inherent rights.
2 citations
TL;DR: The case of Terrett v. Taylor (1815) and Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) as mentioned in this paper is the missing link between these cases and the present case.
Abstract: This article clarifies the precise connection between two early national Supreme Court decisions, the little-known Terrett v. Taylor (1815) and the landmark Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). The missing link between these cases is incorporation. Both disputes arose in the turmoil of post-Revolutionary disestablishment as state legislatures directly challenged the rights of colonial corporations. While Dartmouth College had been incorporated by a royal charter in colonial New Hampshire, the litigant in Terrett, a parish vestry, had been incorporated under common law in colonial Virginia. After the Revolution, Virginia's legislature disestablished the Anglican Church, disregarded its customary incorporation, revoked its post-revolutionary act of incorporation, and seized parish property. These radical policies set Virginia apart from other states and made these disputes a critical litmus test for the rights of all corporations. John Marshall opposed these policies while serving as a delegate in Virginia's legislature, and his views on these issues prefigured his opinion in Dartmouth College. Virginia's highest court upheld these policies as lawful, but the US Supreme Court's rejected them as unconstitutional in Terret. The Court's ruling in Terrett set a significant precedent for the standing of all private corporations vis-a-vis state legislatures and laid the groundwork for the Court's decision in Dartmouth College.
04 Jun 2021
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review how the Supreme Court interpreted local autonomy in the Philippines through the decisions it rendered from 1991 to 2016, in the hope of outlining and summarizing the meaning and extent of local autonomy within the framework of the 1987 Constitution, the Local Government Code of 1991 and other laws.
Abstract: This paper attempts to review how the Supreme Court interpreted local autonomy in the Philippines through the decisions it rendered from 1991 to 2016, in the hope of outlining and summarizing the meaning and extent of local autonomy within the framework of the 1987 Constitution, the Local Government Code of 1991 and other laws. More particularly, the paper examines the interplay between local autonomy, on the one hand, and executive and legislative powers on the other.
[...]
TL;DR: A history of the Court's access jurisprudence from Houchins to the present can be found in this article, where the authors argue that the Houchin's plurality holds outsized influence and that influence has, rarely, been questioned.
Abstract: In summer 2018, the Trump Administration barred media access to detention centers on the border. In winter 2019, officials facing a crisis at a federal jail in Brooklyn barred media access when the power and heat went out. And, throughout 2020, governments sought to ban journalists from portions of Black Lives Matter protests. The constitutional provenance of these media bans can be traced to a series of Supreme Court decisions from 1978 to 1982, and to one case in particular: Houchins v. KQED, Inc. In that 3-1-(3) decision, the plurality maintained that the First Amendment did not “mandate[] a right of access to government information.” Today, that plurality holds outsized influence – but that influence has, rarely, been questioned. This Article does so and concludes that Houchins has little to commend to it. It first provides a history of the Court’s access jurisprudence from Houchins to the present and describes how this history spawned a split in lower courts where half treat the Houchins plurality as controlling, while the other half do not. Against that backdrop, it makes four claims. First, Houchins’ facts and its analysis are much narrower than courts have claimed. Second, it has questionable precedential weight as it lacks a majority or controlling opinion and was heard by only seven Justices. Third, it was displaced by the Court’s later access cases. Finally, it is remarkably anti-democratic. This Article concludes by urging lower courts to reassess outworn reliance on the Houchins plurality in order to develop a cohesive body of access jurisprudence that upholds principles of democratic self-governance.
04 May 2021
TL;DR: In this paper, Collins and Eshbaugh-Soha examine if, how, and when presidents publicly discuss specific Supreme Court decisions and conclude that the majority of presidents do not discuss them.
Abstract: In their new book, Paul M. Collins, Jr. and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha examine if, how, and when presidents publicly discuss specific Supreme Court decisions. Given the background that both authors brin...
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an open-ended framework for determining whether a fine or forfeiture is excessive under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, using the familiar five W's (and one H).
Abstract: This Article explains how Timbs v. Indiana does more than hold that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local authorities. Timbs also gives definition to those “excessive fines” the Constitution guarantees “shall not be . . . imposed.”
This definition emerges when Timbs is read alongside three other decisions: (1) Austin v. United States—the Supreme Court’s decision holding that forfeitures are “fines” within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause; (2) United States v. Bajakajian—the only other case in which the Supreme Court has applied the Excessive Fines Clause; and (3) the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision on remand in Timbs, which surveys all available case law and adopts a helpful framework for determining excessiveness. Timbs, Austin, and Bajakajian, when combined with examples from federal circuit courts and state high courts, represent a cogent standard for excessiveness. This emerging standard can be summarized using the familiar “five W’s (and one H).”
There are seven salient questions: Who committed what offense; when and where; what property is the government taking; how was that particular property involved in the offense; and why does the government want it? By answering these questions based on all the evidence, courts can determine whether a fine or forfeiture is excessive.
Like the five Ws, the seven questions of excessiveness are open-ended by design. The meaning of “excessive fine” has been open ended and fact-specific for a long time. The Eighth Amendment’s standard can be traced through centuries of Anglo-American law. Yet, the standard has never been reduced to strict factors, rigid formulae, or balancing tests. Instead, the “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” right recognized in Timbs requires courts to focus on all the circumstances of a particular offense and particular offender. Every case is viewed holistically, considering what punishments are available, those already imposed, the effect that additional economic penalties will have on the offender and her community, the government’s motivations, examples in case law, and the historical purposes of the protection against excessive fines.
Each of the seven questions is explained with reference to the excessiveness standard announced on remand in Timbs, relevant Supreme Court decisions, and examples from lower courts shedding additional light. The result is an Eighth Amendment excessiveness standard with contours and shape but little in the way of firm boundaries. Others have proposed a balancing test; this Article proposes an open-ended inquiry that should be allowed to develop on a case-by-case basis.
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The eLegPredict system as discussed by the authors is the first legal prediction model to predict Indian supreme court decisions and has achieved 76% accuracy (F1-score) on 3072 supreme court cases.
Abstract: Legal predictive models are of enormous interest and value to legal community. The stakeholders, specially, the judges and attorneys can take the best advantages of these models to predict the case outcomes to further augment their future course of actions, for example speeding up the decision making, support the arguments, strengthening the defense, etc. However, accurately predicting the legal decisions and case outcomes is an arduous process, which involves several complex steps -- finding suitable bulk case documents, data extracting, cleansing and engineering, etc. Additionally, the legal complexity further adds to its intricacies. In this paper, we introduce our newly developed ML-enabled legal prediction model and its operational prototype, eLegPredict; which successfully predicts the Indian supreme court decisions. The eLegPredict is trained and tested over 3072 supreme court cases and has achieved 76% accuracy (F1-score). The eLegPredict is equipped with a mechanism to aid end users, where as soon as a document with new case description is dropped into a designated directory, the system quickly reads through its content and generates prediction. To our best understanding, eLegPredict is the first legal prediction model to predict Indian supreme court decisions.
07 Oct 2021
TL;DR: In this article, the primum remedium principle is applied in environmental law enforcement in B3 waste cases, where the principle does not need to be proven and clearly commits pollution and destruction of the environmental environment.
Abstract: The principle of primum remedium emphasizes the application of Article 84 of Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Protection and Management of the Environment, whose actions do not need to be proven, it is clear that committing environmental crimes, which in environmental law enforcement is rarely applied by judges in the Supreme Court decisions. Doctrinal research with the adjudication of judges' decisions. The application of the primum remedium principle in environmental law enforcement in B3 waste cases does not need to be proven and clearly commits pollution and destruction of the environmental environment, thus providing a deterrent effect for perpetrators and anyone who will commit environmental crimes. The formulation of the classification of criminal elements is clearly and firmly regulated in the UUPPLH criminal provisions relating to the application of the two principles of primum remedium and ultimum remedium. The validity of criminal law as primum remedium with Decision Number 487 / Pid.B / LH / 209 / PN Sm, does not pay attention to formal offenses so that environmental crimes can be released from criminal threats. For this reason, the judge's understanding and certification in deciding cases related to environmental law must be evaluated and monitored for the judge.
01 Jan 2021
TL;DR: In this paper, the evolution of EPA climate policy over the course of three presidential administrations, those of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, is discussed. And the role of Supreme Court decisions in supporting, obstructing, and shaping each administration's plans is explored.
Abstract: This chapter traces the evolution of EPA climate policy over the course of three presidential administrations – those of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. It examines the Bush administration’s thwarted attempt to avoid issuing any limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration’s mostly successful endeavor to establish such standards for the most significant emissions sources, and the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to undermine those Obama-era achievements. The chapter also explores the role of Supreme Court decisions in supporting, obstructing, and shaping each administration’s plans.
01 Jan 2021
TL;DR: The relationship between American law and politics is perhaps nowhere more apparent than on Capitol Hill as discussed by the authors, where Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is explored and the extent to which the Court has overruled congressional legislation over time is examined.
Abstract: The relationship between American law and politics is perhaps nowhere more apparent than on Capitol Hill. Given this context, here we first explore Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Next, we turn to Supreme Court decisions on three constitutional issues: (1) congressional membership, (2) privileges and immunities, and (3) the conduct of investigations. We then analyze cases pertaining to Congress’s delegation of power to the president and the executive branch, followed by an examination of the Court’s interpretation of Congress’s taxing and spending power. Finally, we look at the extent to which the Court has overruled congressional legislation over time.
TL;DR: The Tennessee wine case as discussed by the authors, decided in June of 2019, had a major effect on the path of the law for an issue not argued in it, and the Court's opinion removed serious doubts about validity of the Doctrine itself, even though the petitioner and supporting amici curiae did not ask it to review the issue.
Abstract: The Tennessee Wine case, decided in June of 2019, had a major effect on the path of the law for an issue not argued in it. The Supreme Court affirmed invalidity of a protectionist state liquor regulation that discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant commerce clause doctrine. Its holding rejected a vigorous defense based on the special terms of the Twenty-first Amendment that ended Prohibition—an issue of interest only to those involved in markets for alcoholic drinks. However, the Court’s opinion removed serious doubts about validity of the Doctrine itself, even though the petitioner and supporting amici curiae did not ask it to review the issue. The Doctrine was established by 19th Century Supreme Court decisions that set the legal framework for the American common market—until justices advocating the Doctrine’s abolition seemed close to a majority early in the present Century. The Tennessee Wine opinion eliminated that threat for the foreseeable future.
24 Jun 2021
TL;DR: In this article, the relative failure of the strategies of COVID-19 combat in Brazil, with their mismatches and the predominance of prohibitions over other specific measures of public health, is revealed. But despite the group of measures and efforts to obtain a common goal, the objectives were not attained, because of individualized behavior, the omission of the Federal Government, and formalization of criminal law, making it difficult to punish.
Abstract: Objective: reveal the relative failure of the strategies of COVID-19 combat in Brazil, with their mismatches and the predominance of prohibitions over other specific measures of public health. Methods: we used the descriptive-analitical method, using bibliographic research about the topic in books, articles, book chapters, electronic means, and documents, analysing the Constitution of 1988 and the Criminal Code. Results: several states, cities and branches of government promoted means to combat COVID-19, each with their own tools. These include from Supreme Court decisions to legislative decrees. Conclusion: despite the group of measures and efforts to obtain a common goal, the objectives were not attained, because of individualized behavior, the omission of the Federal Government, and the formalization of criminal law, making it difficult to punish.
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In this article, the disparities in the judges' decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia regarding the completion of non-Muslim inheritance in Indonesia and its relevance to the values of justice and humanity are analyzed.
Abstract: This article aims to analyse the disparities in the judges’ decision of the Supreme Court (MA) of the Republic of Indonesia (RI) regarding the completion of non-Muslim inheritance in Indonesia and its relevance to the values of justice and humanity. This study uses a normative-juridical approach and a statutory approach by with a legal, conceptual, and case approach. It analyses five Supreme Court decisions from 1995 to 2018 that consist of: a) 368 / K / AG / 1995; b) 6 / K / AG / 2010; c) 331 / K / AG / 2018 and religious court decision. For the sense of justice in the community, Supreme Court judges decided that non-Muslim heirs are still entitled to the inheritance of Islamic heirs through wasiat wajibah scheme. This study shows that the judiciary progressively uses a contextual-humanistic approach to divide the inheritance of different religions. Following the maqashid sharia, by entrusting the legacy of Muslim to non-Muslim heirs, it will safeguard these assets by carrying out righteous deeds following the teachings of Islam. These findings can be applied to strengthen the arguments of judges and for formulating marriage and family law in Indonesia, especially in determining the material rights of non-Muslims in family institutions. The rejection of inheritance for non-Muslims has been more dominant because of religious politics which undermine the human value. Therefore, this study offers the contextual-humanistic legal approach by prioritizing legal certainty, justice, humanity and equality, which become the foundation of Non-Muslim possibility to inherit the asset.