Browse Clearinghouse Review articles by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Communications & Marketing
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Fundraising & Development
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- Leadership
- Legal Research
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Technology
- Training
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 Decisions on Court Access: The March to the Right Continues
The Roberts Court continued on its conservative course, restricting plaintiffs’ access to federal court in several cases, involving pleading requirements, deference, standards for preliminary injunctions, stare decisis, and postjudgment relief. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal the Court again restricted Rule 8 notice pleading. Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, a case pitting environmentalists against the Navy, changed the standard that some appellate courts use to grant a preliminary injunction. Horne v. Flores made it easier to overturn remedial injunctions in “institutional reform” cases. In another case the Court found it easy to reject stare decisis when most justices disagreed with the precedent. However, the Court found that Title IX did not preclude a Section 1983 action and where politics, money, the judiciary, and corporate litigation mixed, recusal was required.
Copies of this article are free of charge. See all of the related articles from our annual federal court access series.
