Which scenario describes a federal court going against the principle of
precedent?
A. A judge in a U. S. court of appeals overturns a defendant's
conviction on the grounds that evidence used in the case was
illegally obtained.
O
B. A defendant who violated a federal law argues that he should not
be convicted because the law is unconstitutional.
O
c. The Supreme Court rules that companies must pay men and
women equal wages despite earlier court rulings allowing wage
differences.
O
D. A federal judge finds a criminal defendant not guilty because she
believes his case should have been tried in a state court.

c. The Supreme Court rules that companies must pay men and  women equal wages despite earlier court rulings allowing wage differences.

Explanation:

Principle of precedent dictate that the decision of the previous court can be used as a basis for the decision on future similar legal cases.

In option C, we know that there were earlier rulings that allow Wage difference in companies. If the supreme court wanted to follow the principles of the precedent, it has to allow the wage difference too.

It doesn't matter what type of decision it is, it can be said as going against the principle of  precedent if the decision contradict the decision that made by previous court on similar cases.

b. british workers

the answer is: must pay taxes on profits

since it is considered as a part of your income, profits from investments is eligible for tax payment.

the tax from your investment could be influenced by how long you decided to sell it. united states promotes keeping your investment for long term period. so, the tax rate for investments that you sell in less than one year is typically higher compared to investments that you sell in more than one year period.