Bincike mai tsauri
 Bincike mai tsauri | |
|---|---|
| Bayanai | |
Applies to jurisdiction (en)  | Tarayyar Amurka |
A cikin Dokar kundin tsarin mulki ta Amurka, lokacin da doka ta keta ka'idar doka ta asali, kotun na iya amfani da ƙa'idar bincike mai tsauri. Bincike mai tsauri yana riƙe da dokar da aka kalubalanci kamar yadda ba ta da inganci sai dai idan gwamnati za ta iya nuna cewa doka ko ka'idoji sun zama dole don cimma "sha'awar jihar". Dole ne gwamnati ta kuma nuna cewa dokar "an tsara ta sosai" don cimma wannan manufa mai tilasta, kuma tana amfani da "mafi ƙuntataccen hanyar" don cimma hakan. Rashin cika wannan ma'auni zai haifar da buga doka kamar yadda ba bisa ka'ida ba.
Bincike mai tsauri shine mafi girman kuma mafi tsauri na sake dubawa na shari'a a Amurka kuma yana daga cikin matakan binciken shari'a da Kotunan Amurka ke amfani da su don tantance ko haƙƙin tsarin mulki ko ka'idar ya kamata ta ba da damar sha'awar gwamnati game da kiyaye ka'idar. Ƙananan ƙa'idodi sune bita mai ma'ana da ƙididdiga ko bincike na tsakiya. Ana amfani da waɗannan ƙa'idodin ga dokoki da ayyukan gwamnati a kowane matakin gwamnati a cikin Amurka.
An gabatar da ra'ayin "matakan binciken shari'a", gami da bincike mai tsauri, a cikin Footnote 4 na hukuncin Kotun Koli ta Amurka a Amurka v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), ɗaya daga cikin jerin yanke shawara da ke gwada tsarin mulki na dokokin New Deal. Ɗaya daga cikin sanannun shari'o'in da Kotun Koli ta yi amfani da ƙa'idar bincike mai tsauri kuma ta sami ayyukan gwamnati na tsarin mulki shine Korematsu v. Amurka (1944), tun lokacin da aka soke shi, inda Kotun ta amince da tilasta ƙaurawar Jafananci na Amurka a sansanonin fursunoni a lokacin Yaƙin Duniya na II. Wani misali shine hukuncin Kotun Gundumar DC na 2007 a cikin Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach cewa an nuna sha'awar gwamnati ta tilasta a cikin ƙuntata magungunan da ba a amince da su ba.[1]
Amfani da shi
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]Kotunan Amurka suna amfani da ƙa'idar bincike mai tsauri a cikin mahallin biyu:
- lokacin da aka keta haƙƙin tsarin mulki na asali, [2] musamman waɗanda aka samu a cikin Dokar 'Yancin da waɗanda kotun ta ɗauka haƙƙin asali ne wanda aka kare ta hanyar Ma'anar Tsarin Daidaitawa ko "ma'anar' yanci" na Kwaskwarimar 14, ko
- lokacin da matakin gwamnati ya shafi "rarrabawar da ake zargi", kamar kabilanci ko asalin ƙasa.
Don gamsar da ƙa'idar bincike mai tsauri, doka ko manufofi dole ne:
- a tabbatar da shi ta hanyar sha'awar gwamnati. Duk da yake Kotuna ba su taɓa bayyana yadda za a tantance ko sha'awa tana tilasta ba, ra'ayin gabaɗaya yana nufin wani abu da ya zama dole ko mahimmanci, sabanin wani abu da aka fi so kawai. Misalan sun haɗa da tsaron ƙasa, adana rayukan mutane da yawa, kuma ba sa keta ka'idojin tsarin mulki.
- a daidaita shi sosai don cimma wannan burin ko sha'awa. Idan matakin gwamnati ya kunshi abubuwa da yawa (ya wuce gona da iri) ko kuma ya kasa magance muhimman fannoni na sha'awa mai tilasta, to ba a la'akari da dokar da ta dace ba.
- zama mafi ƙuntataccen hanyar cimma wannan sha'awa: dole ne ba a sami hanyar da ba ta da ƙuntata don cimma burin gwamnati yadda ya kamata ba. Za a sadu da gwajin koda kuwa akwai wata hanyar da ta fi ƙuntata. Wasu malaman shari'a suna la'akari da wannan "ƙananan ƙuntatawa" wanda ake buƙata wani ɓangare na kasancewa mai ƙuntata, amma Kotun gabaɗaya tana kimanta shi daban.
Rarrabawar wadanda ake zargi
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]Kotun Koli ta kafa ka'idoji don tantance ko doka ko manufofi dole ne su gamsu da bincike mai tsauri. Ɗaya daga cikin hukunce-hukuncen ya ba da shawarar cewa mutanen da abin ya shafa dole ne su sami tarihin nuna bambanci, dole ne a bayyana su a matsayin rukuni bisa ga "a bayyane, ba za a iya canzawa ba, ko halaye masu rarrabewa", ko kuma su kasance 'yan tsiraru ko "marasa iko a siyasa".[3]
Kotun ta ci gaba da gano cewa rarrabuwa bisa ga launin fata, asalin ƙasa, da warewa suna buƙatar sake dubawa mai zurfi. Kotun Koli ta yanke hukuncin cewa duk rarrabuwar da ta danganci launin fata dole ne a yi nazari sosai a cikin Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 US 200 (1995), wanda ya soke Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (89-453), 497 US 547 (1990), wanda ya ba da izinin amfani da bincike na tsakiya don nazarin tasirin daidaito na rarrabuwar tseren a cikin ƙananan shirye-shiryen tabbatar da gwamnatin tarayya ta kafa a fagen watsa shirye-shirye.
Manazarta
[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]- ↑ Currie, Peter M. (2006–2007). "Restricting Access to Unapproved Drugs: A Compelling Government Interest". Journal of Law & Health. 20 (2): 309. Retrieved 2023-07-29.
- ↑ Blackmun, H. "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)". Justia Law (in Turanci). Retrieved 2023-02-12.
- ↑ "Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635 (1986)". Justia - US Supreme Court. 27 June 1986. Retrieved 9 May 2022.
As a historical matter, [close relatives] have not been subjected to discrimination; they do not exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and they are not a minority, or politically powerless.