yes
The Supreme court decision on Marbury version Madison by the federal judiciary. This is part of the court systems.
Assuming the matter before the Arkansas trial court involves federal or constitutional law (rather than a state statute) and is analogous to a decision of the US Supreme Court, they are supposed to abide by Supreme Court decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis.If they fail to adhere to established interpretations of law, they are handing the defendant or respondent valid grounds for appealing his or her case.Yes.
In the case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its authority to review state supreme court decisions involving federal law. This decision established the principle of federal court supremacy over state courts in matters concerning the interpretation of federal law.
A Supreme Court decision that invalidated the Arkansas law against the teaching of human evolution in public schools. !968, I think.
It strengthened the powers of the federal government.
it strengthened the powers of the federal government
it strengthened the powers of the federal government
it strengthened the powers of the federal government
it strengthened the powers of the federal government
Jackson & nixon
No. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and federal laws is definitive. There are situations where a federal agency (or the Federal Reserve) could change its policy slightly to try to work around a Supreme Court decision while still basically doing the same thing, but that isn't "overriding" the Supreme Court.
the federal income tax was unconstitutional