Yes, many cases involve the Ku Klux Klan. Many courts have ruled in favor of the Klan's right to speech, assembly, anonymous pamphleteering, participation in Missouri's "adopt a highway" program and many other legal issues involving the governments attempts to deny the KKK their constitutional rights.
The ACLU often times represents the KKK in various courts.
2 members of the Klan even served on the U.S. Supreme Court, oddly enough, their names were Black and White.
The website www.kkk311.com has links to KKK court cases.
Yes, look at hawke vs. smith
Other than the Hawke V. Smith?
No. You can be any religion you choose - or no religion at all - without involving any civil court in any way.
In any civil court case with a controversy of over $20, you have the right to a jury of your peers. (that's $20 in 1700's money, today any cases involving less than $1500 can be settled in small claims court. Also, you can not be tried in a court which is not recognized by the U.S. Government.
The Court of International Trade (USCIT), in New York City, has nationwide jurisdiction over cases related to customs, tariffs, import transactions and international trade laws. Broadly, the court considers "any civil action against the United States, its officers, or its agencies arising out of any law pertaining to international trade." Prior to 1980, the USCIT was known as the US Customs Court.
Whether a sixteen-year-old is judged as an adult or a minor depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in which he or she is arrested and tried. There is no such thing as "teen court," by the way. There is juvenile court, where cases involving minors of any age are tried.
No.No. Only cases involving federal laws and federal jurisdiction.
The County Court system hears more cases than any other court system. This court is usually the first court to hear a complaint or criminal case.
An onlooker is a term that can be used for people who attend any court session just to listen to the cases.
The KKK did not help the US in any way.
Yes, there have been US Supreme Court cases involving testing on animals. For example, in the case of United States v. Stevens (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty was overbroad and violated the First Amendment. This case did not directly address testing on animals, but it did touch on the broader issue of animal welfare in legal contexts.
Cases the US Supreme Court reviews under its appellate jurisdiction usually involve unresolved or unclear constitutional matters that may have resulted in a Circuit split (different decisions on substantially the same question by two different US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts) or a decision from any lower appellate court that is in opposition to the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation or to established precedents.