Difference between revisions of "Gregory v. Ashcroft"
(New page: ''Gregory v. Ashcroft'', 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of states rights against a claim that a mandatory retirement provision for judges (...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''Gregory v. Ashcroft'', 501 U.S. 452 | + | ''Gregory v. Ashcroft'', 501 U.S. 452 (1991), was a decision by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in favor of states rights against a claim that a mandatory retirement provision for judges (at age 70) in Article V, § 26, of the Missouri Constitution was contrary to federal law and the [[Equal Protection Clause]]. The Court rejected the challenge to the state regulation because it would “alter the ‘usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government.’” ''Id.'' at 460 (quoting ''Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon'', 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)). “[I]t is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress’ intent” before infringing on the state regulation. ''Id.'' (quotation marks and citation omitted). |
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion for the Court, over liberal dissent. | Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion for the Court, over liberal dissent. | ||
[[Category:Law]] | [[Category:Law]] | ||
Revision as of 00:33, May 30, 2007
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of states rights against a claim that a mandatory retirement provision for judges (at age 70) in Article V, § 26, of the Missouri Constitution was contrary to federal law and the Equal Protection Clause. The Court rejected the challenge to the state regulation because it would “alter the ‘usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government.’” Id. at 460 (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)). “[I]t is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress’ intent” before infringing on the state regulation. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion for the Court, over liberal dissent.