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.

Roe v. Wade reaffirmed, again.

Abstract: The majority opinions have been very consistent in the 13 years since Roe v. Wade in determiniing what legitimate restrictions US state legislatures can place on abortion decisions by women and their physicians. The Courts most recent opinion addresses specific legislative provisions designed to curtail abortions. At issue in Thornburg v. American College of Obstetricians and Gybecologists (54 LW 4618 June 10 1986) were 6 specific provisions of Pennsylvanias Abortion Control Act of 1982. The Court invalidated all 6 of the provisions in dispute: informed consent; printed information; reporting; determination of viability; postviability care for the child; and the requirement of a 2nd physician at postviability abortions. The Court restated and emphasized 3 primary points: 1) the centrality of the right to privacy; 2) the chilling and brutal effect of unclear criminal laws on medical practice; and 3) the importance of the doctrine of "stare decisis" in a government-based on lwa. That the Court did not remand the case to the trial court for further evidentiary proceedings and that the author of Wade v. Roe Justice Harry Blackmun was chosen to write the opinion means that the majority of the Court went out of its way to once again reaffirm the principles enunciated in Roe.

Gender Justice through Public Interest Litigation: Case Studies from India

Abstract: This Article examines the application of the Supreme Court of India’s enterprising Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism to a subject of compelling global concern: violations of women’s rights. India is currently receiving much international attention for its dynamism and innovation on various fronts, yet the country also remains steeped in centuriesold norms and conventions. This tension is reflected in the decisions of the Supreme Court, which has assumed an active role in enforcing women’s rights through PIL but is sometimes limited in this regard by the complex cultural context in which it operates. Based on an analysis of Indian constitutional law, case studies of landmark Supreme Court decisions, and extensive interviews with stakeholders in India, the Author argues that the PIL vehicle has great potential for advancing gender justice. However, the success of this endeavor in a society that is rapidly evolving—yet still deeply patriarchal— * Portions of this Article are adapted from LITIGATING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: USING PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO PROMOTE GENDER JUSTICE IN INDIA (2006), a report the Author wrote during a Robert L. Bernstein Fellowship in International Human Rights at the Center for Reproductive Rights. The views presented in this Article belong only to the Author, the individuals cited, or both. ∗∗ J.D., Yale Law School (2003); B.A., Princeton University (1999). The Author is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Social Psychology at Princeton University. She thanks Jayanth Krishnan, Katherine Franke, Elizabeth Brundidge, Anil Kalhan, C. Raj Kumar, Vishnu Vardhan Shankar, Nick Robinson, and Monica Hakimi for their helpful comments on drafts of the Article. The Author is also grateful to the Bernstein Fellowship and the Center for Reproductive Rights, and to all the interviewees in India for generously sharing their time, knowledge, and experiences. Correspondence should be directed to avani@aya.yale.edu. 834 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 41:833 will depend upon strategic mobilization by women’s rights advocates and committed efforts by the Court to enforce the rights of women, independent of mainstream opinion and within the boundaries of the separation-of-powers doctrine. If India can assume a leading role in advancing gender justice through its judiciary, its PIL mechanism could serve as an inspiring model for other constitutional courts and international human rights bodies.

The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump

Abstract: When presidents take positions on pending Supreme Court cases or criticize the Court's decisions, they are susceptible to being attacked for acting as bullies and violating the norm of judicial independence. Why then do presidents target Supreme Court decisions in their public appeals? In this book, Paul M. Collins, Jr and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha argue that presidents discuss the Court's decisions to demonstrate their responsiveness to important matters of public policy and to steer the implementation of the Court's decisions. Using data from Washington to Trump, they show that, far from being bullies, presidents discuss cases to promote their re-election, policy goals, and historical legacies, while attempting to affect the impact of Court decisions on the bureaucracy, Congress, the media, and the public.

Triaging the Law: Developing the Common Law on the Supreme Court of India

Abstract: Legal precedent serves as the foundation of the common law. Judges provide their reasoning through precedent, citing cases to support their conclusion while distinguishing between cases cited by that counsel in favor of an opposing result. Legal precedent also provides the mechanism by which judges communicate with one another, at the same time providing guidance to prospective litigants and the practicing bar. This process is particularly important for supreme courts, whose decisions bind all lower courts within their jurisdiction. For this reason, in most common‐law jurisdictions, the supreme court decides relatively few cases but draws heavily on precedent for the opinions it issues. The Supreme Court in India stands in contrast to its counterparts in countries such as the United States and Canada in that it decides thousands, rather than tens, of cases. Examining the universe of Court decisions from 1950–2010, we find that the Court elects not to cite precedent in nearly half its opinions. In turn, these opinions without citation to precedent are rarely subsequently cited. However, there is a second set of decisions that is more analogous to U.S. Supreme Court decisions. These decisions do cite prior decisions and are cited by later cases. Opinions that do cite precedent gravitate to older opinions, whose salience often endures for decades. These findings suggest the Court is constrained in its ability to process a heavy caseload, and makes strategic decisions as to which opinions to emphasize through its use of precedent.