This paper analyzes the understanding of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States about press freedom. The research aims to compare the position of the Courts about this fundamental right. Using the comparative method, it analyzes the arguments used by the courts in trials which had press freedom as its object. The paper also presents a literature review of the Bra...

he Supreme Court is the highest court of India. It is at the apex of the Indian judicial system. In the previous two lessons, you have learnt that the Union legislature, which is known as Parliament, makes laws for the whole country in respect of the Union and the Concurrent Lists and the executive comprising the President, Council of Ministers and bureaucracy enforces them. Judiciary, the thir...

This Article assesses three major preemption decisions from the 2008–2009 Term—Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, Wyeth v. Levine, and Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n—for their implications about the role of the states in national administrative governance. The Article argues the decisions are centrally concerned with using state law and preemption analysis to improve federal administration and police a...

hearsay in common law, is a statement made out-of-court and offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the assertion made in the statement. the hearsay rule states that hearsay is not admissible unless provided by exceptions in the rules of evidence or courts’ precedents. the test for determining hearsay is whether a statement was made out of court and is being offered in order to prove...

In writing The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is, William H. Rehnquist becomes the first sitting Chief Justice to author a book that explains the workings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not a treatise on constitutional doctrine; rather, it surveys the "borderland between American history and constitutional law" (p. 8). Chief Justice Rehnquist's book succeeds in providing the "int...

Since the United States Supreme Court ruling in 2002 on the Atkins v. Virginia case, which determined that executing an individual with mental retardation violates the Eighth Amendment, the potential motivation to malinger mental retardation by individuals charged in potential death penalty cases has emerged. The following case illustrates some of the challenges that emerge in such an evaluatio...

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the years, court precedents have guided determinations of reasonableness provided a legal structure for police to follow. In two influential decisions, Supreme Court validated pretextual traffic stops in which motorist committed minor violation ( Whren v United States, 1996), established standard reasonab...

The shocked reaction of commentators to the recent Canadian Supreme Court decision (Chaoulli v. Quebec) overturning Quebec's ban on private healthcare insurance is difficult to square with the facts and policy options realistically open to provincial governments. The problem is that rhetoric has centred on preserving a single-tier universal system that has never existed in the form its supporte...