The main directions of the judicial activity of the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of civil rights and freedoms

Issue 55, 2024

Dauren Makhambetsaliyev, Elvira Alimova, Chingiz Utegenov, Gulnar Sagynbekova, Akmaral Smanova

Received 03.10.2023, Revised 14.12.2023, Accepted 22.02.2024

https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/55.2024.153ol2

Abstract

Relevance. The relevance of the stated topic of scientific research is determined by the diversity of the activities of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the field of law-making, in the context of the development of basic provisions for the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the main areas of activity of the US Supreme Court in the field of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens of the country in the context of the current legislation.

Methodology. The methodological basis of the article was the methods of statistical analysis, analogy and generalization, as well as comparative legal, formal legal and formal logical methods.

Results. The leading approach in this research work is a combination of a systematic analysis of the legislative activities of the US Supreme Court as a whole with an analytical study of the main activities of this court specifically in the field of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens of the country. The main results obtained in the course of this scientific research should be considered the identification of the main directions of the legislative activity of the US Supreme Court in the context of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens from the point of view of the peculiarities of the historical development of the country’s legal and judicial systems.

Conclusions. Prospects for further scientific research in this direction are determined by the possibility of studying the features of the legislative activity of the highest court of the United States, in terms of assessing the quality of providing legal protection to citizens of the country. in the area of their rights and freedoms.

Keywords: law-making; judgment; interpretation of the law; protection of human rights; US judicial system

Suggested citation

Makhambetsaliyev D, Alimova E, Utegenov C, Sagynbekova G, Smanova A. The main directions of the judicial activity of the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of civil rights and freedoms. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(55):1532-1542. DOI: 10.54919/physics/55.2024.153ol2

Download article

References

  1. Supreme Court Procedures. 2022. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
  2. Aryn AA. The role of the US Supreme Court in the legal system. Bull Al-Farabi Kazakh Nation Uni. Law Series. 2020;4(96):110-119.
  3. Isabekov AK, Otynshiyeva AA, Makhambetsaliyev DB, Castellino J. The role of the US Supreme Court in the legal system. J Actual Prob Jurisprud. 2019;89(1):213-220.
  4. Kuanaliyeva GA, Makhambetsaliyev DB, Saulen N. Methods of constitutional interpretation in US practice. Bull Inst Legislat Legal Info. 2021;2(65):34-45.
  5. Tlepina ShV. Legislative support of international legal norms in the field of civil and political human rights and freedoms in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Bull L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian Nation Uni. Law Series. 2019;3(128):145-161.
  6. Shumenova RT, Kaimuldinov EE. The rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen in the Republic of Kazakhstan are the highest constitutional and legal value for the state. Actual Sci Res Moder World. 2019;9-3(53):89-94.
  7. Khan NA, Vambol V, Vambol S, Bolibrukh B, Sillanpaa M, Changani F, Esrafili A, Yousefi M. Hospital effluent guidelines and legislation scenario around the globe: A critical review. J Environ Chem Eng. 2021;9(5):105874.
  8. Korzhik VN. Theoretical analysis of amorphization conditions for metallic alloys under gas-thermal spraying. III. Transformations in the amorphized alloy under building-up of coatings. Poroshkovaya Metall. 1992;(11):47-52.
  9. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
  10. Khodakivska O, Kobets S, Bachkir I, Martynova L, Klochan V, Klochan I, Hnatenko I. Sustainable development of regions: Modeling the management of economic security of innovative entrepreneurship. Int J Adv Appl Sci. 2022;9(3):31-38.
  11. Paton BE, Chernets AV, Marinsky GS, Korzhik VN, Petrov VS. Prospects of using plasma technologies for disposal and recycling of medical and other hazardous waste. Part 2. Probl Spetsial Electrometall. 2005;(4):46-54.
  12. Constitution of the United States of America. 1787. https://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/cnstUS.htm
  13. Marbury v. Madison. 1803. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
  14. Fletcher v. Peck. 1810. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/10us87
  15. Alabama v. Shelton. 2002. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1214
  16. European Convention on Human Rights. 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-on-human-rights
  17. Orders of the Court – Term Year 2022. 2022. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx?Term=08
  18. 2 USC 441b: Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations. 2000. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title2-section441b&num=0&edition=2000
  19. H.R.2356 – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. 2002. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2356
  20. Korzhik VN. Theoretical analysis of the conditions required for rendering metallic alloys amorphous during gas-thermal spraying. II. Phase formation during solification of the sprayed material. Sov Powder Metall Metal Ceram. 1992;31(10):826-830.
  21. Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter. 1908. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/349
  22. Dudgeon v the United Kingdom. 1981. https://www.hr-dp.org/contents/566
  23. Moses ML. Beyond judicial activism: When the supreme court is no longer a court. J Constitut Law. 2011;14(1):161-214.
  24. Spytska LV. Analysis of the most unusual court decisions in the world practice in terms of the right to justice. Soc Leg Stud. 2022;5(4):39-45.
  25. Borisov Y, Korzhyk V. Internal stresses in plasma coatings with an amorphous structure. Proceed Int Therm Spr Conf. 1998;1:693-697.
  26. Drobyazko S, Bondarevska O, Klymenko D, Pletenetska S, Pylypenko O. Model for forming of optimal credit portfolio of commercial bank. J Manag Inf Dec Sci. 2019;22(4):501-506.
  27. Fialko N, Dinzhos R, Sherenkovskii J, Meranova N, Aloshko S, Izvorska D, Korzhyk V, Lazarenko M, Mankus I, Nedbaievska L. Establishment of regularities of influence on the specific heat capacity and thermal diffusivity of polymer nanocomposites of a complex of defining parameters. East-Eur J Enter Tech. 2021;6(12(114)):6-12.
  28. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. 2011. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/10-779
  29. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins. 1980. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289
  30. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2000. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
  31. Zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn -v- Borbón y Borbón. 2022. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/zu-sayn-wittgenstein-sayn-v-borbon-y-borbon/
  32. Familiapress. 1997. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61995CJ0368
  33. National Labor Relations Act. 1935. https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act
  34. Sugeng B, Vandawati CZ. The problematics of simple lawsuit implementation to reduce civil cases in Supreme Court. AL-HUKAMA: Indones J Islam Family Law. 2020;10(1):171-194.
  35. Joyeux-Jastrebski B. The role of public opinion in rights adjudication: The examples of the United States supreme court and the European Court of Human Rights. Paris: University Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne; 2018.
  36. Swenson DR. United States Supreme Court approach to first amendment freedom of religion in response to the COVID pandemic. Rev Euro Comp Law. 2021;46(3):237-261.
  37. Hunter RJ, Shannon JH, Lozada HR. The “Big Five” decisions of the United States Supreme Court from June 2022: Ten days of consequences for the United States Supreme Court and the American people. Glob J Polit Law Res. 2022;10(4):14-39.
  38. Galic A. A civil law perspective on the supreme court and its functions. Stud Iuridica. 2019;81:44-86.
  39. Spytska L. Prohibition in the USA, the USSR, and the UAE: Ideological and Procedural Differences, Causes of Failures or Successes. Nov J. 2023;17(3):67-92.
  40. Dolzhenko N. The development of a method for assessing the preparation of aviation personnel participated in ensuresing flight safety. East-Eur J Enter Tech. 2023;5(3(125)):57-63.
  41. Kunitskii YuA, Korzhik VN, Nemirovskii AV. Transformations in the plasma-sprayed Fe67Ti7B24C2 alloy in heating. Sov Mater Sci. 1990;26(1):87-90.
  42. Willems G. Private and family life through the lens of human rights: A comparative analysis of the United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights case-laws. CRIDHO Working Papers; 2019. https://www.academia.edu/40890425/Private_and_Family_Life_through_the_Lens_of_Human_Rights_A_Comparative_Analysis_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court_and_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_Case_laws
  43. Cousins M. The “Benefit Cap” and human rights before the Supreme Court. J Social Secur Law. 2020;1:23-31.
  44. Islam MR, Hossain KSMT, Krishnan S, Ramakrishnan N. Inferring multi-dimensional ideal points for US Supreme Court justices. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 4-12). Palo Alto: AAAI Press; 2016.
  45. Dagan N. The Janus face of imprisonment: Contrasting judicial conceptions of imprisonment purposes in the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States. Criminol Crim Justice. 2021;21(5):633-649.
  46. Carback J. Contempt power and the United States courts. Mitchell Hamline Law J Pub Policy Pract. 2023;44(1):6.
  47. Nzuva SM. The United States Supreme Court landmark cases: Implications on racial/ethnic minorities’ welfare. J Law, Policy Globalizat. 2021;110:21-33.
  48. Szabados T. Conflicts between fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: A comparison with the US Supreme Court practice. Euro Paper. 2018;3(2):563-600.
  49. Oliva TD. Content moderation technologies: Applying human rights standards to protect freedom of expressions. Human Right Law Rev. 2020;20(4):607-640.
  50. Hansford TG, Lucero E, Intawan C, Robles R. The effect of state Supreme Court selection method on perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court. J Law Court. 2023;1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2022.17
Make a Submission

Indexing

info@physics.uz.ua