Were Gates v. Collier and Boumediene v. Bush both cases in the federal court ?
fdd9d088ace92aed808f97f45509ed79
Gates v. Collier Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974), was a landmark case decided in U.S. federal court that brought an end to the Trusty system and the flagrant inmate abuse that accompanied it at Mississippi State Penitentiary (Parchman) in Sunflower County, Mississippi. It was the first case in a body of law developed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a variety of forms of corporal punishment against prisoners constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of Eighth Amendment rights. This case was also the first broad-scale intervention by a court in the supervision of prison practices.
3c215d798cb2462f7e4106cdd131a071
Boumediene v. Bush Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) , was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition "Al Odah v. United States". It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.
49c22a529cb257c876d2af923c030466
Ake v. Oklahoma Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required the state to provide a psychiatric evaluation to be used on behalf of an indigent criminal defendant if he needed it.
436df851cf741438dd09ffbbe02349b2
Military Commissions Act of 2009 The Military Commissions Act of 2009, which amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was passed to address concerns by the United States Supreme Court. In "Boumediene v. Bush" (2008) the court had ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional in suspending the right of detainees to "habeas corpus". The court ruled that detainees had the right to access US federal courts to challenge their detentions.
1dae21077e9015719c2ba598e0cb3f09
Florida v. Riley Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
a3a25654cfd0110ebc5c597d899848cc
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving Florida voters during the 2000 presidential election. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested clarification from the Florida Supreme Court regarding a decision it had made. Shortly after the Florida Supreme Court provided those clarifications, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore in the case of "Bush v. Gore".
5854a6fea1d7450be47ca63ddafec575
Barber v. Thomas Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned how the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons should calculate "good time credits", reduced sentences for inmates who stayed out of trouble while in custody.
d98e2a70f76a4fb6603ff301c55aabb5
Cobell v. Salazar Cobell v. Salazar (previously Cobell v. Kempthorne and Cobell v. Norton and Cobell v. Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell (Blackfeet) and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds. It was settled in 2009. The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners). The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The original complaint asserted no claims for mismanagement of the trust assets, since such claims could only properly be asserted in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
74a9c5a883749ebdbe30b5a0e854accb
United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
269005bfe9f9fce38c0a7f1383efb2c0
Diamond v. Charles Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) , was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.
5a0aede65f027c8e1d1fd97731c5273b
Dice v. Akron, Canton &amp; Youngstown R. Co. Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal court rules apply when an action is brought pursuant to a federal right and where the substance of a state's rules would necessarily have an adverse effect on the protection of an individual's rights under federal law.
5713fe9b1c3ad9569017ee653afa47f8
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&amp;T Corp. Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007), was a United States (U.S.) Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under  /271(f) § 271(f)  .
da3c210a1b271d5e55ca5570cddb1910
Yakus v. United States Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld congressional power to fetter judicial review and to delegate broad and flexible law-making power to an administrative agency in this constitutional challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The wartime anti-inflation measure, intended to expedite price control enforcement, conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of Office of Price Administration (OPA) regulations made under the act. But judicial power to consider the constitutionality of such regulations was accepted. Congress specified that challenges to their validity be initially reviewed under stringent time limitations by the OPA and on appeal exclusively by a special Article III tribunal in the District of Columbia—the Emergency Court of Appeals—and thereafter by the Supreme Court.
a1c97c0a472fc6c861b88343bbd175c9
Al Halmandy v. Bush is a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of 63 Guantanamo detainees, on December 13, 2005. It was one of over 200 habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of detainees held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.
6e89cba9df4a0138ce3386bc09ccebcf
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, docket no. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal.), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
41d12b74aa2f1baf28a5071eca424b49
Dalton v. Specter Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an Executive Order to shut down the Philadelphia Naval Base was not subject to judicial review. In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that the decision to close the base was not subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act because the decision to close the base did not constitute the final action of an agency. Additionally, the Court held that the decision to close the base, which was made pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, was not subject to judicial review because the 1990 Act "commits decisionmaking to the discretion of the President".
1a867ac7f2527d0bde28539f41a87707
Emmett Ripley Cox Emmett Ripley Cox (born February 13, 1935) is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
955450ca78ba6b9f3c3bc971de5961c6
United States v. Lopez United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the second United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned possession of handguns near schools, was unconstitutional because it did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. After the "Lopez" decision, the act was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.
1ad16954ea893e9664f5c2f2beba3b20
United States v. Carolene Products Co. United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case contains for its famous "Footnote Four" in which the Court established the system of heightened scrutiny for laws targeting "discrete and insular minorities," compared with the lower scrutiny applied for economic regulations, as in this case.
9224be6a3df01cfd64cac435afacbe3c
Waite Court The Waite Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1874 to 1888, when Morrison Waite served as the seventh Chief Justice of the United States. Waite succeeded Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Waite served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Melville Fuller was nominated and confirmed as Waite's successor. The Waite Court presided over the Gilded Age and the end of the Reconstruction Era. It also played an important role in the 1876 presidential election, as five of its members served on the Electoral Commission that was created to settle the contested election. During the Waite's tenure, the jurisdiction of the federal courts was expanded by the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, which gave federal courts full jurisdiction over federal questions.
257ab2832399f43fa2d7b464c36053f4
United States v. Williams (1951) United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 70 (1951) , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that provides that (protecting US citizens' Fourteenth Amendment rights from individuals sworn to uphold laws) may only be applied to federal cases and is not available to the state governments.
9bacc8b3a17af212c24ad18e75ffb5f1
Massachusetts v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The case was consolidated with "Frothingham v. Mellon". The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing: