Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are savvy enough to recognize the limits of Bostock and McGirt. The quartet recognizes full well that Gorsuch’s opinions leave enough wiggle room to avoid a strict textualist holding in the future.

The Constitution is known as a “living” document because it can be amended, although in over 200 years there have only been 27 amendments. The Constitution is organized into three parts. The first part, the Preamble, describes the purpose of the document and the Federal Government.

A judge that relies solely on the literal or plain meaning of a text does not consider supporting or supplementary sources, such as modern social policy or legislative history, when interpreting a statute.

An originalist believes that the fixed meaning of the text should be the sole guide for a judge when applying or interpreting a constitutional provision. Textualist: A textualist is an originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution.

The Living Constitution, or loose constructionism, is the claim that the United States Constitution and other constitutions hold a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if it is document is not formally amended.

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or …

Introduction There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic …

As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. …

The Court is now beginning to interpret the Constitution in accordance with its revolutionary and transformative potential. With about a dozen significant Constitution Bench decisions from the Supreme Court since September 2018, there has been a renaissance in decision-making by Constitution Benches.

It is the Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136 and the High Courts under 226 and 227, that are vested with the power of ‘Judicial Review’ where state actions or inactions are put through a constitutional Litmus test. …

-(1) No High Court shall have jurisdiction to declare any Central law to be constitutionally invalid. (2) Subject to the provisions of article 131A, the High Court may determine all questions relating to the constitutional validity of any State law.

“Bills have been withdrawn, enforcement of laws has been delayed by not notifying them and laws have been repealed but keeping it in abeyance after the legislative process is over has never happened before.” “Only the Supreme Court has the power to stay a law, not the government.

Judicial review is where a court determines whether or not the government violated the Constitution. The process typically begins with a person challenging a law (or government activity) in court. The person challenging the law must have standing, meaning he must be a person affected by the law.

It is common knowledge that high courts have writ jurisdiction and can decide the question of law in a particular case. The Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976 had inserted Article 226A in the Constitution: constitutional validity of central laws not to be considered in proceedings under Article 226.

Article 368(4) provided that no Constitutional Amendment shall be called in any court on any ground. The Constitutional validity of Article 323A and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act was challenged on the ground that it excluded the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 and 227.

A civil rights violation is any offense that occurs as a result or threat of force against a victim by the offender on the basis of being a member of a protected category. For example, a victim who is assaulted due to their race or sexual orientation. Violations can include injuries or even death. Race. Color.

Has a judge violated your constitutional rights? Although it is almost impossible to recover monetary damages from a judge (unless you can prove he or she acted ultra-vires beyond his or her legal jurisdiction) it is in fact possible to obtain relief in equity against a judge through civil rights actions.