Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.: “Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution. “The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law. “The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means. *** “But today’s decision does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders. “We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. Moreover, under fundamental First Amendment principles, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available in other states. “Advocates with different views on this issue have the right to, and will, voice their opinions. Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment. But we must be clear that violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts. *** “The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom. “Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage. “The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services. “And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care. In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy. “Furthermore, federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law. And federal employees who carry out their duties by providing such services must be allowed to do so free from the threat of liability. It is the Department’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that federal employees engaging in such conduct would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law. The Justice Department is prepared to assist agencies in resolving any questions about the scope of their authority to provide reproductive care. *** “The ability to decide one’s own future is a fundamental American value, and few decisions are more significant and personal than the choice of whether and when to have children. “Few rights are more central to individual freedom than the right to control one’s own body. “The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”
A judgment is a written statement of the reasons for a court’s decision. A typical judgment contains the following elements:
Most legal disputes that are eventually resolved by the verdict of a court are rarely straight forward. Consequently, judgments are usually more complex than the simple outline of elements above can capture. Because the High Court only hears the most important cases in Australia, its judgments are often among the most complex. A judgment may also contain comments and arguments on legal points or issues that are not raised directly by the facts. These statements are known as obiter dicta (‘said in passing’). Although obiter dicta contained in lower court judgments are not considered binding, recent decisions and scholarship suggest that obiter dicta in High Court judgments may now bind lower courts (see here). Written reasons will usually indicate which earlier cases and arguments put to the Court by the parties the judge found persuasive or unpersuasive. Reasons for a decision assist parties in understanding why they were successful or unsuccessful in their immediate case, but more importantly also form a source of principles to be considered and possibly applied in future cases. Single judgments, joint judgments and plural judgments A joint judgment is a judgment that is co-authored by two or more judges. Where a majority of Justices issues a joint judgment, that forms the majority judgment of the Court. A majority may still form among several judgments, which is sometimes referred to as a plurality (although that term is not often used in Australia, and its precise meaning is not settled). The key to understanding the difference is to remember that the majority’s ruling is formed by whichever orders a majority of the judges would make (for example, dismiss the appeal, appellant to pay the respondent’s costs, and so on). Judges may dismiss an appeal based on different (and sometimes conflicting) legal arguments: the end result is the same for the immediate parties before the Court, but the case’s significance in future cases may be unclear or open to interpretation. In this instance, there may be no clear majority. Instead a majority ‘view’ must be divined, if possible, from the reasons for judgment. This can quickly become a complex task. Sometimes it is relatively simple: for example, two judges may co-author a joint judgment, and the remainder write single judgments that explicitly state that the judge agrees with the joint judgment (‘I agree with Justice X’, and often referred to in commentary using the phrase ‘with whom Justice Y agreed’), but adds further comments, or canvasses additional issues raised by the case. There is no practice in the High Court of clearly identifying the ‘majority reasons’ as the ‘opinion of the Court’, nor is it common practice for a Justices to precisely identify particular sections of another judgment that a judge agrees with or dissents from. Both of these practices occur in other supreme courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States. Dissenting judgments Read More
Amicus curiae brief: “Friend of the court” brief; a brief filed by a person, group or entity that is not a party to the case but nonetheless wishes to provide the court with its perspective on the issue before it. The person or entity is called an “amicus”; the plural is “amici.” Capital case: In a capital case, the prosecution asks the jury to sentence a defendant on trial for murder to death. By the time a capital case reaches the Supreme Court, the defendant has already been convicted and sentenced, and either the defendant or the government is asking the court to review a decision by a lower court in the other’s favor. Certiorari-stage brief: Certiorari-stage briefs are the efforts by parties to tell the court why it should or should not take a case. Once the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case, each party has the opportunity to file merits briefs to tell the court why it thinks it deserves to win. Circuit: The United States is divided into 13 circuits, most containing groups of contiguous states, each with a different court of appeals (as shown on this map). Eleven of the circuits are numbered first to 11th. The District of Columbia has its own circuit that hears many cases involving the federal government. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is not geographic. Instead, it hears cases involving particular subject matter, such as patents and international trade. Concurring opinion: Sometimes a justice votes with the majority of the court on the outcome of a case, but wants to write a separate concurring opinion (or “concurrence”). For example, a “concurrence in the judgment” may give different reasons for reaching the same conclusion. Other justices may join a concurring opinion written by a justice. Conference: The justices meet privately in conference, twice a week when the court is in session and usually once a week when the court is not in session, to vote on petitions for certiorari and on argued cases. Court of appeals: The 13 courts of appeals are federal courts that hear appeals, mostly from federal district (i.e., trial) courts, but also from federal administrative agencies. Of all the cases the Supreme Court hears, the vast majority come from federal courts of appeals. A court of appeals is often referred to by the name or number of its circuit (for example, “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit” or just “the 9th Circuit”). CVSG: When the court is deciding whether to grant certiorari in a case and thinks the view of the federal government might be relevant or useful – even though the United States is not a party – it can call for the views of the Solicitor General (“CVSG”). The U.S. solicitor general then files a brief in the case expressing the views of the United States government. Although a CVSG is technically an invitation, the solicitor general always treats it as a command. Dissent: If a justice disagrees with the court’s opinion, he or she may issue a dissent, which, like the opinion, is a substantive and often lengthy piece of writing that lays out reasons why the court’s opinion is mistaken. Other justices may join a justice’s dissent. Docket: The calendar of cases that the court is scheduled to hear is known as the docket. A case is “docketed” when it is added to the docket, and it is given a “docket number” at that time. The court’s docket shows all the official actions in that case, such as the filing of briefs and orders of the court. Grant of certiorari (or “cert grant”): The Supreme Court grants certiorari when it decides, at the request of a party challenging the decision of a lower court, to review the merits of the case. At least four justices must vote to grant certiorari in a case. For roughly every 100 petitions for certiorari received by the court, one petition is granted. (If the Supreme Court denies certiorari in a case, then the opinion below stands; the decision to deny certiorari does not make precedent.) GVR: When the court “GVRs,” it “grants certiorari,” “vacates” the decision below and “remands” a case to the lower court without hearing oral argument or deciding the case on the merits. A GVR order is not accompanied by a written opinion addressing the merits of the case, but the court usually provides some direction to the lower court by, for example, instructing it to reconsider its decision in light of a recent decision by the Supreme Court. Habeas (or habeas corpus) petition: A habeas petition is a request for a court to review the legality of someone’s detention or imprisonment. All federal courts, not just the Supreme Court, can hear habeas petitions, though federal statutes impose significant constraints. Holding a case: Keeping a case in abeyance, pending the disposition of another case. Merits briefs: Once the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case, each party has the opportunity to file merits briefs. Unlike the certiorari-stage briefs, which tell the court why it should or should not take the case, the merits briefs tell the court why each party thinks it deserves to win. Opinion: When it decides a case, the court generally issues an opinion, which is a substantive and often lengthy piece of writing summarizing the facts and history of the case and addressing the legal issues raised in the case. Opinion below: The opinion issued by the court that heard the case immediately before the losing party asked the Supreme Court to review the case (almost always a federal court of appeals or a state court of last resort) is known as the opinion below. Order: An order is an instruction or direction issued by the court. Unlike an opinion, which analyzes the law, an order tells parties or lower courts what they are to do. For example, the court can order certiorari granted or denied in a case, it can order a lower court to re-examine a case in light of a new point or theory, or it can order the parties in a case to conduct oral argument on a certain date. Per curiam opinion: An unsigned opinion, written for the court as a whole by an unidentified justice, is called a per curiam opinion. (In Latin, “per curiam” means “by the court.”) Written dissents from per curiam opinions are signed. Petition for certiorari: When a party in a case is unhappy with the decision of a lower court (a state court of last resort or a federal court of appeals), it can choose to file a brief asking the Supreme Court to hear its case. That brief is a petition for certiorari. Petitioner: The petitioner (or topside party) is the party asking the Supreme Court to review the case because she lost the dispute in the lower court. Her name goes first in the case name. For example, George W. Bush was the petitioner in Bush v. Gore. (If a state is the petitioner, the petition might be called “state-on-top.”) Relist: A relist occurs when the justices consider a petition for certiorari at one of their private conferences but decline to act on it, instead “relisting” it, typically for the following conference. In recent years, the court has begun a practice of routinely relisting petitions that are under serious consideration for review at second or subsequent conferences prior to entering orders granting or denying certiorari. This practice is distinct from the justices holding a petition pending the disposition of another case. Remand: The term “remand” means “to send back” and refers to a decision by the Supreme Court to send a case back to the lower court for further action. When it remands a case, the court generally includes instructions for the lower court, telling it to start an entirely new trial or directing it, for example, to look at the dispute in the context of laws or theories it might not have considered the first time around. Respondent: The respondent (or bottomside party) is the party that won in the lower court. His name goes second in the case name. For example, Al Gore was the respondent in Bush v. Gore. (If a state is the respondent, the petition might be called “state-on-bottom.”) Solicitor general: Sometimes called the “tenth justice,” the solicitor general is the lawyer for the U.S. government, and attorneys in his or her office are responsible for presenting cases on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court. Someone from the solicitor general’s office will also frequently argue on behalf of the United States when the government is not a party but has filed an amicus brief in the case. Summary reversal: The court issues a summary reversal when it grants certiorari in a case and overturns the opinion below without written briefs or oral argument on the merits. When the court reaches a judgment this way, it generally issues a per curiam opinion. Vacate: When the Supreme Court vacates a lower court ruling, it strips that ruling of effect, often in order to send the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. |
What is it called when a Supreme court justice disagrees?
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 comojogaruno Inc.
