scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Supreme Court Decisions

About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The intent, scope, and impact of recent laws passed in 10 states attempting to expand the legal rights of health plan enrollees to sue their plans are examined.
Abstract: The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) supersedes state laws as they relate to employer-based health care plans. Thus, cases brought under ERISA are heard in federal courts. We examined the intent, scope, and impact of recent laws passed in 10 states attempting to expand the legal rights of health plan enrollees to sue their plans. In June 2004, the US Supreme Court ruled that state-law causes of action brought under the Texas Health Care Liability Act involving coverage decisions by Aetna Health Inc and CIGNA Health Care of Texas were preempted by ERISA. The full implications of this decision are not evident at present.

3 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: Reactions of individuals from same-sex couples and a heterosexual sibling who is currently or previously married to the Supreme Court decisions revealed the following themes: (1) longitudinal perspectives on the advancement of rights for same- sex couples; (2) emotional responses celebrating the decisions or expressing relief; and (3) practical consequences of the extension of rights.
Abstract: The US Supreme Court decisions in US v Windsor (570 US 307) and Hollingsworth v Perry (570 US 399) created a focal point for public discussion of marriage equality for same-sex couples This article reports the results of an exploratory study of the reactions of individuals currently or previously in same-sex couple relationships and a heterosexual sibling who is currently or previously married (N = 371) to the Supreme Court decisions Thematic content analysis was used to explore participants’ responses to an open-ended question on a survey Reactions of individuals from same-sex couples revealed the following themes: (1) longitudinal perspectives on the advancement of rights for same-sex couples; (2) emotional responses celebrating the decisions or expressing relief; (3) affirmation of their relationship or rights; (4) practical consequences of the extension of rights; and (5) minority stress related to anticipation of future prejudice or discrimination Themes in the heterosexual siblings’ responses were (1) ally support; (2) flat support without emotion or elaboration; (3) indifference to or ignorance about the decisions; and (4) disapproval of the decisions These themes are compared and discussed in light of prior research on reactions to marriage restriction debates and marriage (in)equality and family relationships

3 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the First Amendment has been summarized in this paper in order to assess its impact on religion in the United States and the products of the Court's activity that appear to have the most significance for religion in America are the following.
Abstract: It would probably be too much to say that the religion clauses of the First Amendment "ain't nothing" until the United States Supreme Court "calls" them. Yet they are to a large extent a form to which the Court must supply the content, a skeleton on which the Court must put the flesh and blood. The Court has added most of the flesh and blood only since it decided in the 1940s that the free exercise of religion and the establishment of religion clauses apply to the states as well as to the federal government.1 American constitutional law on the relations be tween government and religion is largely a creature of the Court's fashioning in the last one-third of a century. The purpose of this paper is not to undertake a thorough review and analysis of the Court's jurisprudence on this subject, but only to summarize it briefly in order to assess its impact on religion in the United States. For reasons that will presently appear, some opinions of the Court other than those interpreting the religion clauses will be cited. The products of the Court's activity that appear to have the most significance for religion in America are the following. The Court has all but closed the door to substantial public aid to church-related schools at the elementary and secondary levels. At the same time it has insisted on the secularization of the

3 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argued that the traditional interpretation of in loco parentis is not entirely consistent with compulsory education laws and is inconsistent with other Supreme Court decisions treating school officials as state actors for purposes of the Due Process and Free Speech Clauses.
Abstract: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.l I. INTRODUCTION Historically, the Supreme Court has adhered to two basic principles in its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. "First, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically delineated and well-recognized exceptions."2 Second, highly intrusive searches, conducted under the warrant requirement or one of its exceptions, are reasonable "only on a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime will be found in the place to be searched."3 However, prior to 1985, public school teachers and administrators were not subject to these Fourth Amendment requirements. According to the doctrine of in loco parentis, teachers and administrators acted under the authority of the parent, not of the state.4 As Blackstone explained in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, a parent may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is employed.s In 1985, the Supreme Court, in New Jersey v. T.L.O.,6 held that the actions of public school teachers and administrators are governed by the Fourth Amendment. At issue in TL.O. was a high school administrator's search of a student's purse to obtain evidence confirming a teacher's direct observation that a girl was smoking in a lavatory in violation of school rules.' The T.L.O. Court found the traditional interpretation of in loco parentis to be "in tension with contemporary reality and the teachings of this Court."g Specifically, the Court held that the concept of in loco parentis is not entirely "`consonant with compulsory education laws"'9 and is inconsistent with other Supreme Court decisions treating school officials as state actors for purposes of the Due Process and Free Speech Clauses of the Constitution.' Further, the Court had previously held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights . . . at the school house gate."jl Based upon these considerations, the Court held that public school teachers and administrators are subject to the limits of the Fourth Amendment and "cannot claim the parents' immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment."12 Even so, the Supreme Court upheld the search at issue because, although school teachers and administrators are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, the unique circumstances and setting of a school require a diminution of Fourth Amendment requirements. The Court explained that "the preservation of order and a proper educational environment . . . in the schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures," which entails "some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject."13 Therefore, the Court held that neither the warrant requirement 14 nor the probable cause requirement"5 apply to a search of a public school student by a school teacher or administrator. "Rather," the Supreme Court wrote, "the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search."16 The Supreme Court concluded that a search of a public school student by a teacher or administrator would be constitutionally permissible "when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school."17 The Supreme Court recently expanded upon TL. …

3 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Accountability
46.6K papers, 892.4K citations
75% related
Legislation
62.6K papers, 585.1K citations
74% related
Public policy
76.7K papers, 1.6M citations
74% related
Shareholder
18.6K papers, 608.1K citations
73% related
Racism
28.4K papers, 735.2K citations
72% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202311
202221
202118
202026
201938
201832