Which scenario describes a federal court going against the principle of precedent?

A. A federal judge rules that newspapers may be censored during an emergency despite earlier courts declaring this practice unconstitutional

B. A state supreme court overturns a defendant's conviction on the grounds that the judge for his first trial demonstrated a bias against him

C. A court rules that a state is allowed to racially segregate restrooms because earlier courts ruled in favor of segregated buses.

D. A defendant convicted of a federal crime appeals to the Supreme Court, but his request is denied

A. A federal judge rules that newspapers may be censored during an emergency despite earlier courts declaring this practice unconstitutional

Explanation:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The correct answer is option A. The scenario that describes a federal court going against the principle of precedent would be the one in which a federal judge rules that newspapers may be censored during an emergency despite earlier courts declaring this practice unconstitutional. The principle of precedent is used in legal systems to describe the situation in which a legal case is used as a precedent because it establishes a principle or a rule. An example of a legal precedent is the case Brown vs Board of Education. This case became a precedent because it established that racial segregation within the public school system was unconstitutional. Precedents are then used as examples for similar cases that will happen in the future.