DOCSLIB.ORG

The Essential Supreme Court Decisions, 15Th Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Essential Supreme Court Decisions, 15Th Edition Essential Supreme Court Decisions Essential Supreme Court Decisions Summaries of Leading Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law Fifteenth Edition JOHN R. VILE ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK Published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowmanlittlefield.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2010 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vile, John R. Essential Supreme Court decisions : summaries of leading cases in U.S. constitutional law / John R. Vile. — 15th ed. p. cm. Rev. ed. of: Summaries of leading cases on the Constitution / Joseph F. Menez and John R. Vile. 14th ed. 2004. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4422-0384-6 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-4422-0385-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-4422-0386-0 (electronic) 1. Constitutional law—United States—Digests. I. Menez, Joseph Francis, 1917– Summaries of leading cases on the Constitution. II. Title. KF4547.4.V55 2010 342.7300264—dc22 2010008375 ϱ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America Contents Preface to the Fifteenth Edition xxi Acknowledgments xxv This Is Our Supreme Court xxvii 1 Article I: The Legislative Branch 1 Powers 2 Commerce 2 Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 2 Brown v. Maryland (1827) 3 Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851) 4 United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895) 5 In re Debs (1895) 6 Champion v. Ames (1903) 7 The Shreveport Case (1914) 8 Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) 9 Stafford v. Wallace (1922) 10 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936) 11 Kentucky Whip and Collar Co. v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1937) 12 West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) 13 [United States v. Carolene Products Company (1938)]* [United States v. F. W. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)] Wickard v. Filburn (1942) 14 * Brackets denote related cases found in other chapters of this book. v vi Contents United States v. Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944) 15 Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) 16 United States v. Lopez (1995) 17 Jones v. United States (2000) 18 [United States v. Morrison (2000)] Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 19 Delegation of Powers 21 J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928) 21 Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) 22 Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) 23 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) 24 Yakus v. United States (1944) 25 Mistretta v. United States (1989) 26 Implied Powers 28 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 28 McGrain v. Daugherty (1927) 29 Watkins v. United States (1957) 29 Barenblatt v. United States (1959) 30 Taxing/Spending and Regulatory Powers 31 Hylton v. United States (1796) 31 Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869) 32 Collector v. Day (1871) 33 Legal Tender Cases (1871) 34 Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. (1895) 35 Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904) 37 McCray v. United States (1904) 38 South Carolina v. United States (1905) 38 Swift and Co. v. United States (1905) 39 Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1910) 40 Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922) 41 United States v. Butler (1936) 42 Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) 42 National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937) 43 Helvering v. Davis (1937) 45 Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe (1939) 45 Mulford v. Smith (1939) 47 Contents vii National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University (1980) 48 NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma (1984) 48 South Dakota v. Dole (1987) 49 Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) 50 Privileges and Terms of Members 51 Powell v. McCormack (1969) 51 Gravel v. United States (1972) 52 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 53 2 Article II: The Executive Branch 57 Powers 58 Martin v. Mott (1827) 58 Ex parte Merryman (1861) 59 Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) 60 In re Neagle (1890) 61 Myers v. United States (1926) 62 Ex parte Grossman (1925) 63 Rathbun, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) 64 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) 65 Dames and Moore v. Regan (1981) 66 Haig v. Agee (1981) 67 Privileges and Limitations 68 United States v. Nixon (1974) 68 Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) 69 Clinton v. Jones (1997) 70 3 Articles I and II: Distinct Yet Overlapping Powers 73 Separation of Powers Issues 74 United States v. Lovett (1946) 74 Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983) 75 Bowsher v. Snyar (1986) 77 Morrison v. Olson (1988) 78 Clinton v. City of New York (1998) 79 Treaties and Executive Agreements 80 Head Money Cases (1884) 80 Missouri v. Holland (1920) 81 viii Contents United States v. Belmont (1937) 82 Goldwater v. Carter (1979) 83 War-Making Powers 84 The Prize Cases (1863) 84 Ex parte Milligan (1866) 85 Selective Draft Law Cases (1918) 86 Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. (1919) 87 Ex parte Quirin (1942) 88 Korematsu v. United States (1944) 89 Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946) 90 Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. (1948) 90 Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) 91 [Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)] Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) 93 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) 93 Rasul v. Bush (2004) 95 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) 97 Boudmediene v. Bush (2008) 100 4 Article III: The Judicial Branch 103 Judicial Jurisdiction and Standing 105 Marbury v. Madison (1803) 105 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) 106 Cohens v. Virginia (1821) 107 Eakin v. Raub (1825) 108 Ableman v. Booth (1859) 109 Ex parte McCardle (1869) 110 Commonwealth of Massachussetts v. Mellon (Frothingham v. Mellon) (1923) 111 Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) 112 Cooper v. Aaron (1958) 113 Flast v. Cohen (1968) 114 Stone v. Powell (1976) 115 Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 116 Elk Grove v. Newdow (2004) 118 Political Questions Doctrine 119 Luther v. Borden (1849) 119 Muskrat v. United States (1911) 120 [Coleman v. Miller (1939)] Contents ix Baker v. Carr (1962) 121 [Powell v. McCormack (1969)] Nixon v. United States (1993) 123 5 Articles IV and VI: Federalism 125 Eleventh Amendment and Sovereign Immunity of States 127 Hans v. Louisiana (1890) 127 Monaco v. Mississippi (1934) 128 Alden v. Maine (1999) 128 Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) 130 University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. Garrett (2001) 131 Lapides v. Board of Regents of University of Georgia (2002) 132 Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002) 133 Federal Preemption 134 Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945) 134 Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956) 135 Sprietsman v. Mercury Marine (2002) 136 Judicial Jurisdiction over States 137 Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) 137 [Cohens v. Virginia (1821)] Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) 138 Worcester v. Georgia (1832) 139 Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987) 140 Limits on the States 141 [McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)] Leisy v. Hardin (1890) 141 Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) 142 Edwards v. California (1941) 143 Camps Newfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison (1997) 143 Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000) 145 Cook v. Gralike (2001) 146 Smith v. Doe (2003) 147 [Gonzales v. Raich (2005)] Limits on Federal Regulation of States 148 New York v. United States (1992) 148 x Contents [United States v. Lopez (1995)] Printz v. United States, Mack v. United States (1997) 150 United States v. Morrison (2000) 151 Status of the States 153 Texas v. White (1869) 153 [Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)] Coyle v. Smith (1911) 154 Ziffrin v. Reeves (1939) 155 Tenth Amendment and State Police Powers 156 United States v. F. W. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) 156 National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) 157 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming (1983) 158 Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) 159 6 Articles V and VII: Constitutional Amending Process and Ratification of the Constitution 161 The Amending Process 162 Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) 162 National Prohibition Cases (1920) 163 Hawke v. Smith (1920) 164 Dillon v. Gloss (1921) 165 Coleman v. Miller (1939) 166 7 Property Rights 169 Contract Clause (Article 1, Section 10) 171 Calder v. Bull (1798) 171 Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 171 Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) 172 Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren River Bridge (1837) 173 Stone v. Mississippi (1880) 174 Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) 175 United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey (1977) 176 Due Process (Economic) and Freedom of Contract (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) 177 Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) 177 Munn v. Illinois (1877) 178 Contents xi Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) 180 Holden v. Hardy (1898) 180 Lochner v. New Yok (1905) 181 Muller v. Oregon (1908) 182 Bunting v. Oregon (1917) 183 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) 184 Nebbia v. New York (1934) 185 Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo (1936) 186 [West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)] Lincoln Federal Labor Union No. 19129 v. Northwestern Iron and Metal Co. (1949) 187 Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. (1949) 188 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 189 State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Campbell (2003) 190 Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) 192 Village of Euclid, Ohio, v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Great Writ: Article I Habeas Corpus
    The Great Writ Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: Habeas Corpus RECOMMENDED GRADE/ABILITY LEVEL: 11th-12th Grade RECOMMENDED LESSON LENGTH: One 50 minute class period ESSENTIAL QUESTION: When does a negative right become a right and, in the case of Habeas Corpus, to whom and in what cases does this right extend? OVERVIEW: In addition to the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, there are also a great deal of rights inherent to the Constitution itself, including the right to Habeas Corpus relief, created via a negative right. In this lesson, students will explore the history and purpose of the Habeas Corpus clause in the Constitution. In consideration of past and present caselaw concerning the application of Habeas Corpus (emphasizing issues of national security and separation of powers), students are tasked with the job of considering the question: When is a writ a right? To whom and in what cases can it extend? MATERIALS: 1. Article: You Should Have the Body: 5. Document: United States Circuit Court of Understanding Habeas Corpus by James Appeals, Second Circuit Decision: Bradley v. Landman (Appendix A) Watkins (Appendix D) [Middle challenge text] 2. Worksheet: 5 Ws of the Writ of Habeas 6. Document: Ex. Parte Merryman (Appendix Corpus (Appendix B) E) [Challenge text] 3. Prezi: The Great Writ: Habeas Corpus Prezi 7. Article: Constitution Check: Is the (found at: http://prezi.com/atlq7huw-adq/? president’s power to detain terrorism utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy) suspects about to lapse? by Lyle Denniston (Appendix F) 4. Document: Supreme Court Decision of 8. Protocol: Decoding a Court Opinion Boumediene v.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber
    AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber, and Keith E. Whittington INDEX OF MATERIALS ARCHIVE 1. Introduction 2. The Colonial Era: Before 1776 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties B. Principles i. Winthrop, “Little Speech on Liberty” ii. Locke, “The Second Treatise of Civil Government” iii. The Putney Debates iv. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” v. Judicial Review 1. Bonham’s Case 2. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” C. Scope i. Introduction III. Individual Rights A. Property B. Religion i. Establishment 1. John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man ii. Free Exercise 1. Ward, The Simple Cobler of Aggawam in America 2. Penn, “The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience” C. Guns i. Guns Introduction D. Personal Freedom and Public Morality i. Personal Freedom and Public Morality Introduction ii. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” IV. Democratic Rights A. Free Speech B. Voting i. Voting Introduction C. Citizenship i. Calvin’s Case V. Equality A. Equality under Law i. Equality under Law Introduction B. Race C. Gender GGW 9/5/2019 D. Native Americans VI. Criminal Justice A. Due Process and Habeas Corpus i. Due Process Introduction B. Search and Seizure i. Wilkes v. Wood ii. Otis, “Against ‘Writs of Assistance’” C. Interrogations i. Interrogations Introduction D. Juries and Lawyers E. Punishments i. Punishments Introduction 3. The Founding Era: 1776–1791 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. Constitutions and Amendments 1. The Ratification Debates over the National Bill of Rights a.
    [Show full text]
  • The Standing Doctrine's Dirty Little Secret
    Copyright 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 107, No. 1 THE STANDING DOCTRINE’S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET Evan Tsen Lee & Josephine Mason Ellis ABSTRACT—For the last forty years, the Supreme Court has insisted that the standing doctrine’s requirements of imminent injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability are mandated by Article III of the Constitution. During that same time, however, the federal courts have consistently permitted Congress to relax or altogether eliminate those requirements in many “procedural rights” cases—ones in which a federal statute creates a right to have government follow a particular procedure, including to provide judicial review of agency decisions. This Article asks how best to rationalize this contradiction. After examining several possibilities, we conclude that the best course is to recognize openly that the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III means different things in different types of litigation. In one “tier”—cases where Congress has made it clear that it has created procedural rights that may be vindicated in court without meeting the usual injury, causation, and redressability requirements—the plaintiff should merely be required to show that he or she falls within the “zone of interests” the statute aims to protect. In all other cases—the other “tier”—existing Article III standing requirements would apply. AUTHORS—Evan Tsen Lee is Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Josephine Mason Ellis is Law Clerk to the Honorable James L. Dennis, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (2012–2014); J.D., University of California, Hastings College of the Law; B.A., University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890S By
    The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890s by David Ray Papke, Professor of Law Marquette University Law School Revised by the Federal Judicial Center for inclusion in the project Federal Trials and Great Debates in United States History Federal Judicial Center Federal Judicial History Offi ce 2008 This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Centerʼs statutory mission to “conduct, coordinate, and encourage programs relating to the history of the judicial branch of the United States government.” The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center. The Debs Case: Labor, Capital, and the Federal Courts of the 1890s Contents The Debs Case: A Short Narrative, 1 The town of Pullman, 1 A strike and boycott, 2 Management organizes, 3 Federal response, 4 A petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, 6 The Federal Courts and Their Jurisdiction, 9 U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9 Supreme Court of the United States, 10 The Judicial Process: A Chronology, 11 Legal Questions Before the Courts, 13 Did the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois have authority to issue an injunction against Eugene V. Debs and the offi cers of the American Railway Union? 13 Did the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 apply to labor unions as well as trusts and monopolies? 14 Did Eugene V. Debs and the other offi cers of the American Railway Union violate the injunction? 14 Did the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ MARK JANUS, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents. _________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit _________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________ JEFFREY M. SCHWAB WILLIAM L. MESSENGER LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER Counsel of Record 190 South LaSalle Street AARON B. SOLEM Suite 1500 c/o NATIONAL RIGHT TO Chicago, IL 60603 WORK LEGAL DEFENSE (312) 263-7668 FOUNDATION, INC. 8001 Braddock Road Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22160 (703) 321-8510 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Is there a “good faith defense” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability for de- priving citizens of their constitutional rights if the de- fendant acted under color of a law before it was held unconstitutional? (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Petitioner, a Plaintiff-Appellant in the court below, is Mark Janus. Respondents, Defendants-Appellees in the court be- low, are American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31; Simone McNeil, in her official capacity as the Acting Director of the Illi- nois Department of Central Management Services; and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. Other parties to the original proceedings below who are not Petitioners or Respondents include plaintiffs Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, Brian Trygg, and Ma- rie Quigley, and defendant General Teamsters/Profes- sional & Technical Employees Local Union No. 916. Because no Petitioner is a corporation, a corporate disclosure statement is not required under Supreme Court Rule 29.6.
    [Show full text]
  • And Mccardle)
    Merryman and Milligan (and Mccardle) JOHN YOO* It has been said that only Jesus and Shakespeare have been the subject of more works than Abraham Lincoln. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still keep trying to get things right. I am going to be adding to that body of literature, on the relationship between Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Civil War. The cases that I address here make up two­ federacy, in Indiana, who was tried and sen­ thirds of the three "m"s of the Supreme Court's tence by a military commission-an old form encounter with the Civil War: Ex parte Mer­ of ad hoc military court established by com­ ryman, 1 Ex parte Milligan,2 and Ex parte Mc­ manders for the trial of violations of the laws Cardle. 3 All three case names bear the styling of war and the administration of justice in oc­ "ex parte" because all three were brought on cupied territory. behalf of citizens detained by the armed forces In these two cases, federal courts ordered ofthe Union. All three detainees sought release the release of the petitioners on the ground that under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which the military had exceeded its constitutional au­ requires the government to show the factual thority. Both opinions contained stirring lan­ and legal grounds for detention to a federal guage about the vitality of constitutional rights judge. I will explain why the cases of the Civil even under the pressure of wartime and the War did not assume the landmark importance, need to maintain checks and balances on the despite their circumstances and language, of a executive's powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    U.S. Court Cases Editor:Thomas Tandy Lewis, St. Cloud State Univ. August 2010 · 3 volumes · 1,346 pages · 6"x 9" ISBN: 978-1-58765-672-9 List Price: $225 e-ISBN: 978-1-58765-676-7 eBook Single User Price: $225 Table of Contents Volume 1 Contents Publisher’s Note Contributors U.S. Supreme Court Citation Numbers Law and the Courts Anglo-American Legal Systems Law Jurisprudence The U.S. Constitution The Bill of Rights Constitutional Law The U.S. Judicial System State and Local Courts The U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Review Due Process of Law Court Cases Abington School District v. Schempp Ableman v. Booth Abrams v. United States Adair v. United States Adamson v. California Adarand Constructors v. Peña Adderley v. Florida Adkins v. Children’s Hospital Afroyim v. Rusk Agostini v. Felton Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board Alcoa v. Federal Trade Commission Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter Allgeyer v. Louisiana Alsager v. District Court American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut American Communications Association v. Douds Antelope, The Aptheker v. Secretary of State Argersinger v. Hamlin Arizona v. Fulminante Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority Atkins v. Virginia Atwater v. City of Lago Vista Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. Baker v. Carr Baker v. Vermont Ballard v. United States Ballew v. Georgia Bank of Augusta v.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking How We Regulate Lawyer-Politicians, 57 Rutgers L
    UIC School of Law UIC Law Open Access Repository UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2005 The Politics of Misconduct: Rethinking How We Regulate Lawyer- Politicians, 57 Rutgers L. Rev. 839 (2005) Kevin Hopkins John Marshall Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/facpubs Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Kevin Hopkins, The Politics of Misconduct: Rethinking How We Regulate Lawyer-Politicians, 57 Rutgers L. Rev. 839 (2005). https://repository.law.uic.edu/facpubs/108 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RUTGERS LAW REVIEW VOLUME 57 Spring 2005 NUMBER 3 THE POLITICS OF MISCONDUCT: RETHINKING How WE REGULATE LAWYER-POLITICIANS Kevin Hopkins* INTRODU CTION .................................................................................... 840 I. THE RISE AND FALL OF THE LAWYER-STATESMAN .......................... 849 A. The Lawyer in Colonial America ............................................ 850 B. The Decline of the Lawyer-Statesman.................................... 855 II. THE REGULATION OF PRACTICING LAWYERS .................................. 859 A. The Powers of the Court and Bar ........................................... 861 B. The Exercise of Self-Regulation .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years
    The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years David M. Rabbant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Free Speech Before the Courts 522 A. Supreme Court Cases 524 I. Avoiding First Amendment Issues 525 Resisting Incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment 525 Excluding Publications from the Mails 526 Neglecting First Amendment Issues 529 Limiting the Meaning of Speech 531 2. Addressing First Amendment Issues 533 Justice Holmes and the Bad Tendency of Speech 533 Review of Statutes Penalizing Speech 536 The First Amendment as the Embodiment of English Common Law 539 3. Hints of Protection 540 4. Summary 542 B. Decisions Based on State Law 543 1. The Bad Tendency Doctrine 543 Speech by Radicals 543 Obscenity and Public Morals 548 2. Libel 550 3. Political Speech 551 4. Labor Injunctions 553 5. Speech in Public Places 555 C. The Judicial Tradition 557 t Counsel, American Association of University Professors. 514 Prewar Free Speech II. Legal Scholarship 559 A. The Social Interest in Free Speech 563 B. The Distinction Between Public and Private Speech 564 1. Schofield's Formulation of the Distinction 564 2. Other Scholarly Support for the Distinction 566 C. The Expanding Conception of Free Speech 568 D. The Rejection of Blackstone 570 E. The Limits of Protected Speech 572 1. The Direct Incitement Test 572 2. Pound's Balancing Test 575 3. Schroeder's Test of Actual Injury 576 4. The Benefits of LibertarianStandards 578 F. The Heritage of Prewar Scholarship 579 III. The Role of the Prewar Tradition in the Early Develop- ment of Modern First Amendment Doctrine 579 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View
    Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation David L. Shapiro, Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 59 (2006). Published Version http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol82/iss1/2/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:13548974 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Notre Dame Law Review Volume 82 Article 2 Issue 1 Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure 11-1-2006 Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View David L. Shapiro Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation David L. Shapiro, Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 59 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol82/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HABEAS CORPUS, SUSPENSION, AND DETENTION: ANOTHER VIEW David L. Shapiro* "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be sus- pended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."' INTRODUCTION The Suspension Clause, as the quoted language is generally de- scribed, is as straightforward as an English sentence can be.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Vicarious Jurisdiction
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 152 JANUARY2004 No. 3 ARTICLES THE CASE AGAINST VICARIOUS JURISDICTION LONNY SHEINKOPF HOFFMANt INTRODUCTION The law of adjudicatory jurisdiction, or personal jurisdiction as it is more commonly called, concerns a court's power to renderjudgments enforceable in the forum and by other sovereign states. For U.S. courts, both state and federal, judicial jurisdiction is as essential to t Assistant Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center. For their valuable input, I owe a debt of thanks to Stephen Bainbridge, Joseph Bauer, Philip Blumberg, Lea Brilmayer, Stephen Burbank, Graeme Dinwoodie, Jill Fisch, Doug Michaels, Doug Moll, Edward Purcell, Robert Ragazzo, Charles Rhodes, Michael Solimine, Kent Syverud, and Robert Thompson; and to the faculty participants at the University of Cincinnati College of Law Summer Scholarship Series and the Southeastern Confer- ence AALS Annual Meeting Program, in Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Excellent re- search assistance was provided by Mark Geller and Robert Reckers. Finally, I am grate- ful to David Warrington at the Harvard Law School Library and to Rebecca Bertoloni Meli at the Indiana University School of Law Library for their assistance with the Louis D. Brandeis archival materials. The University of Houston Foundation provided finan- cial support for this project. (1023) 1024 UNIVERSITY OFPENSYLVANIA LAWREVIEW [Vol. 152:1023 institutional existence as oxygen is to human beings. Without it, courts are unable to render binding judgments; without it, they are paper tigers. Measuring the breadth of judicial power under modern jurisdic- tional doctrine is not a formulaic undertaking, to be sure, but most of the time all that is required is to take into account the acts or omis- sions of a single defendant in relation to the forum.
    [Show full text]