DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Cases TABLE OF CASES 2575 TABLE OF CASES Page 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987)........................................................ 2247, 2550 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)....... 1255, 1257–58, 2252, 2481, 2572 A A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355 (1962).............................................. 1677 A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).................. 330, 332–34 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)...... 77–78, 83–84, 91–92, 94, 204–05, 576 A.L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961)................................. 758–59 A. T. & T. Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232 (1936)......................................................... 1547 Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F.Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark. 1959)......................................................... 509 Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971).......................................................................... 2155–56 Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)............................................................. 1459–60 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).................................................. 746, 755 Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007).................................................... 1702, 2490 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)............................................................... 315, 1376 Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 (1931)....................................................... 1810, 1848 Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)...... 730, 1052, 1063, 1069–70, 1090–91, 1093, 1097, 1107, 2420 Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859).......................................... 784, 876, 880, 969 Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977).................................................................... 1462 Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977).......................... 1132, 1181–82, 1209, 1232 A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)...................................................................... 1299–1300, 2568 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)................. 365, 1130, 1133, 1143–44, 1184, 1273 Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954).................................................................... 1537 Achison v. Huddleson, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 293 (1852)......................................................... 2323 ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000)................................................................. 1310–11 Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995)....................... 1161, 1308 Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1988)............................ 1308 Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 932 F.2d 1504 (D.C. Cir. 1991)............................ 1308 Action v. Gannon, 450 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1971).............................................................. 2191 Adair v. Bank of America Ass’n, 303 U.S. 350 (1938).......................................................... 318 Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908).................................. 207, 1557, 1826, 2277, 2565 Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978)................................. 713, 868, 874 Adams Express Co. v. City of New York, 232 U.S. 14 (1914)............................................. 2497 Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (1913)............................................. 1844, 2521 Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U.S. 129 (1907)....................................................... 2344 Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 214 U.S. 218 (1909)....................................................... 2346 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 165 U.S. 194 (1897).............................................................. 1876 Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307 (1938)......................................................... 237, 2394 Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)......................... 1049, 1051, 1053, 1494, 1639, 2567 Adams v. City of Milwaukee, 228 U.S. 572 (1913)................................................... 1862, 2076 Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278 (1972)...................................................................... 762, 1652 Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179 (1954).................................................. 1007, 1494, 1496–97 Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 (1904)................................................................ 1368, 1434 Adams v. Storey, 1 Fed. Cas. 141 (No. 66) (C.C.D.N.Y. 1817).............................................. 317 Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590 (1917)............................................. 1830–31, 1852, 2358, 2566 Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980)................................................................................. 1616 Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).................................................................. 1385, 1397 2577 2578 TABLE OF CASES Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 (1938)............................................................... 926, 1953, 1972 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)........................ 792, 1543, 2115, 2571 Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).................................................... 1155, 1157, 1317–18 Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)................................................................. 1977, 2028 Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899).................................... 199 Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).................................................... 2033, 2187 Adirondack Ry. v. New York, 176 U.S. 335 (1900)............................................................... 422 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)... 374, 786, 789, 1557, 1821, 1823–24, 2281, 2563 Adler v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 485 (1952)........................ 754, 1192, 1194, 1203, 1935, 2567 Advance-Rumely Co. v. Jackson, 287 U.S. 283 (1932)....................................................... 1847 Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 295 U.S. 285 (1935)............... 2072 Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004)..................................................... 277, 2555 Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 275 U.S. 440 (1928)..................................................................... 1830 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389 (1924).................................................. 947, 2369 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937)............................... 687, 720, 750–51, 757 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389 (1937)......................................................... 1666 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LaVoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986)........................................................... 1991 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Tremblay, 223 U.S. 185 (1912).......................................................... 954 AFGE v. Pierce, 697 F.2d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1982)................................................................... 154 AFL–CIO v. Kahn, 443 U.S. 915 (1979)............................................................................. 463 AFL v. American Sash & Door Co., 335 U.S. 538 (1949).......................... 289, 1180, 1826, 1828 AFL v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321 (1941).................................................................................. 1327 Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).................... 302, 304, 306–07, 310, 1800–02, 2292, 2567 Ager v. Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (1882).................................................................................. 336 Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).................................. 1571, 1579–83, 1810, 1858 Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)............................... 1364, 1386, 1402, 1438, 1441 Agnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36 (1897)..................................................................... 1999 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)........................... 792, 1062, 1064, 1074, 1079–80, 2572 Agosto v. INS, 436 U.S. 748 (1978).................................................................................... 873 Agsalud v. Standard Oil Co., 454 U.S. 801 (1981)............................................................. 2546 Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).............................. 1064, 1073–74, 1077, 1079–80, 2572 Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)....................................................... 1381, 1383–85, 2570 Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948)........................................................................ 710, 2568 Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U.S. 500 (1905)........................................................................... 1865 Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194 (1904)......................................................................... 1846 Air Courier Conf. v. American Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. 517 (1991)......................... 746 Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 86 (1974)............................ 1415 Air-Way Corp. v. Day, 266 U.S. 71 (1924)......................................................................... 2369 Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)............................................................................... 2005 Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (1938)........................................ 167, 729, 745, 977 Alabama Public Service Comm’n 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]
  • 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]
  • Structural Uncertainty Over Habeas Corpus the Jurisdiction of Military
    v5n4.book Page 397 Friday, June 28, 2002 9:19 PM Structural Uncertainty Over Habeas Corpus the Jurisdiction of Military Tribunals George Rutherglen ost lawyers are familiar with the the military and susceptible to prosecution writ of habeas corpus as the vehicle before military tribunals. My purpose in this Mfor a form of more or less limited brief comment is not to address the constitu- appellate review of criminal convictions. In tionality of such tribunals, which others have time of war, however, habeas corpus returns to already considered at length.1 It is, on the its traditional role, dating back to Magna contrary, to suggest that this question will not Carta, as a judicial remedy for unlawful be resolved in any clear-cut way. At least, this detention by the executive branch. And so, is the lesson of the cases from the Civil War today, we see a renewed debate over access to and World War II, the two principal sources the writ by suspected terrorists detained by of law on this subject.2 George Rutherglen is the O.M. Vicars Professor of Law and Earle K. Shawe Professor of Employment Law at the University of Virginia. He would like to thank Curt Bradley, Barry Cushman, Earl Dudley, Dave Martin, Ted White, and Ann Woolhandler for comments on previous drafts of this article. 1 For arguments supporting the constitutionality of the tribunals, see Curtis A. Bradley Jack L. Goldsmith, The Constitutional Validity of Military Commissions, 5 Green Bag 2d 249 (2002). For arguments against, see Neal K. Katyal Laurence H.
    [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]
  • T Exas Review
    A T EXAS REVIEW Of L AW & POLITICS VOL. 20, No. I FALL 2015 PAGES 1-167 JUDICIAL SUPREMACY HAS ITS LIMITS John Yoo JUDICIAL OVERREACH AND AMERICA'S DECLINING DEMOCRATIC VOICE: THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS Brent G. McCune WHEN CONGRESS SPEAKS, DOES THE SUPREME COURT LISTEN? EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONGRESSIONAL PARTICIPATION AS AMICUS CURIAE BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DURING THE REHNQUIST COURT JudithanneScourfield McLauchlan Thomas Gay RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION IN THE WORKPLACE: WHY FEDERAL COURTS FAIL TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EMPLOYEES Debbie N. Kaminer BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE PROBLEM Lino A. Graglia SUBSCRIBE TO THE TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS The Texas Review of Law & Politics is published twice yearly, fall and spring. To subscribe to the Texas Review of Law & Politics, provide the Review with your name, billing and mailing addresses. email: [email protected] online: www.trolp.org or standard mail: Texas Review of Law & Politics The University of Texas School of Law 727 East Dean Keeton Street Austin, Texas 78705-3299 Annual subscription rate: $30.00 (domestic); $35.00 (international). ISSN #1098-4577. REPRINTS It's not too late to get a copy of one of your favorite past articles. See the complete list of the Review's past articles at www.trolp.org. Reprint orders should be addressed to: William S. Hein & Co., Inc. 2350 North Forest Road Getzville, NY 14068 TEXAS REVIEW 0 LAw & POLITICS VOL. 20, NO.1 FALL 2015 PAGES 1-167 ARTICLES JUDICIAL SUPREMACY HAS ITS LIMITS John Yoo.................................................................................... 1 JUDICIAL OVERREACH AND AMERICA'S DECLINING DEMOCRATIC VOICE: THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS Brent G.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity, 64 Fla
    Florida Law Review Volume 64 | Issue 5 Article 3 10-17-2012 The Gold lC ause Cases and Constitutional Necessity Gerard N. Magliocca Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerard N. Magliocca, The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1243 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Magliocca: The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES AND CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY Gerard N. Magliocca Abstract This Article presents a case study of how constitutional actors respond when the rule of law and necessity are sharply at odds and provides some background on Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1935, the Supreme Court heard constitutional challenges to the abrogation of ―gold clauses‖ in contracts and Treasury bonds. Gold clauses guaranteed that creditors would receive payment in gold dollars as valued at the time a contract was made. Due to the deflation that followed the Great Depression, this meant that debtors were being forced to pay back much more than they owed originally. To stop a looming wave of bankruptcies, Congress passed a Joint Resolution declaring all gold clauses null and void. Following oral argument, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned that the Court would invalidate the Joint Resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Federal Appropriations
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Office of the General Counsel January 2004 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law Third Edition Volume I As of September 14, 2017, chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the Fourth Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law supersede chapters 1 through 4 of the Third Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. Chapters 5 through 15 of the Third Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, in conjunction with GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Annual Update to the Third Edition, remain the most currently available material on the topics discussed therein. All current chapters and the Annual Update to the Third Edition are available at www.gao.gov/legal/red-book/overview. This volume supersedes the Volume I, Second Edition of the Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 1991. The Security of this file is set to prevent a situation where linked references are appended to the PDF. If this change prevents an Acrobat function you need (e.g., to extract pages), use the the password “redbook” to revise the document security aand enable the additional functions. GAO-04-261SP Abbreviations APA Administrative Procedure Act BLM Bureau of Land Management CDA Contract Disputes Act of 1978 CCC Commodity Credit Corporation C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations EAJA Equal Access to Justice Act EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FY Fiscal Year GAO Government Accountability Office GSA General Services Administration HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development IRS Internal Revenue Service NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OMB Office of Management and Budget SBA Small Business Administration TFM Treasury Financial Manual U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman V
    C:\program files\qualcomm\eudora\attach\394840.doc Saved on: 1/22/2003 6:15 PM A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman v. United States DAVID FONTANA∗ I. INTRODUCTION Hidden in the basements of American law libraries and in the Westlaw and Lexis databases is a generally ignored 1943 case, Schneiderman v. United States.1 Schneiderman is a case of substantial importance and in- terest that has belonged in the constitutional canon for some time. In Schneiderman, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the gov- ernment’s attempt to denaturalize an American citizen, a leader of the Communist Party, because the Court found that Communists could be “at- tached to the principles of the Constitution.”2 The Court also announced a new, relatively high evidentiary burden that the government has to meet in order to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship.3 Schneiderman is of even greater importance after September 11, 2001, because it sheds light on several key issues facing both this country and its law students and lawyers. September 11, 2001 was a monumental day in American history, politics, culture, and law. The after-effects of that day have just begun to trickle into university classrooms across the country. There are many reports of course offerings that address topics related to September 11. For instance, immediately after September 11, the Univer- ∗ D.Phil. expected, Oxford University, 2004; J.D. expected, Yale University, 2004; B.A., Univer- sity of Virginia, 1999. Many thanks to the following individuals for their assistance with this project and for their comments on all or part of the ideas in this Article: Bruce A.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Power Over the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Has Never Been Judically Determined Because the 124208 U.S
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 109 DECEMBER, 1960 No. 2 CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER -THE APPELLATE JTRISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT LEONARD G. RATNER t The Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" over all cases within the judicial power of the United States originating in state or lower federal courts.1 From time to time since 1796 the Supreme Court has used language in its opinions sug- gesting that by virtue of the exceptions and regulations clause its ap- t Lecturer, Harvard Law School. A.B. 1937, University of California (Los An- geles); LL.B. 1940, University of California (Berkeley). Member, California Bar. 1 U.S. CoNsT. art. III, § 2. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) ; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816). After defining the judicial power of the United States, the section provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in certain specified cases and appellate jurisdiction "in all the other Cases before mentioned." The original jurisdiction thus granted is not exclusive; state and lower federal courts may constitutionally exercise a concurrent jurisdiction in such cases. Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U.S. 511 (1898) ; Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449 (1884) ; B6rs v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884); United States v. Ravara, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 297 (C.C.D. Pa. 1793). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1251, 1331-32, 1345, 1350-51 (1958) ; Act of Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Boumediene V. Bush, Appellate Avoidance Mechanisms, and Black Holes Extending Beyond Guantanamo Bay
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 23 (2014-2015) Issue 4 Article 3 May 2015 Historically Unappealing: Boumediene v. Bush, Appellate Avoidance Mechanisms, and Black Holes Extending Beyond Guantanamo Bay Dennis Schmelzer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Repository Citation Dennis Schmelzer, Historically Unappealing: Boumediene v. Bush, Appellate Avoidance Mechanisms, and Black Holes Extending Beyond Guantanamo Bay, 23 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 965 (2015), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol23/iss4/3 Copyright c 2015 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj HISTORICALLY UNAPPEALING: BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH, APPELLATE AVOIDANCE MECHANISMS, AND BLACK HOLES EXTENDING BEYOND GUANTANAMO BAY Dennis Schmelzer* Spain professes as high a regard for the principles of liberty as we do. Yet in 1899 we found hundreds of prisoners in the jails of Cuba who had been imprisoned for years without trial for want of some definite and certain way in which they could avail themselves prac- tically of the principle. One of these wretches had been imprisoned for eleven years theoretically awaiting trial. General declarations in favor of fair, impartial and speedy trial for persons accused of crime, are worthless without specific provisions enabling the accused to require that he be brought to trial or set free; that he be acquainted with the evidence against him; that he be confronted with the wit- nesses against him; that he have process for the production of his own witnesses; that he be protected in refusing to testify against himself, and that he have counsel for his defense.1 INTRODUCTION U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief in Opposition of Respondent ————
    No. 03-1027 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— DONALD RUMSFELD, Petitioner, v. JOSE PADILLA AND DONNA R. NEWMAN, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JOSE PADILLA, Respondent. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ———— BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENT ———— DAVID W. DEBRUIN DONNA R. NEWMAN JENNER & BLOCK LLP Counsel of Record 601 Thirteenth Street, NW 121 West 27th Street Suite 1200 Suite 1103 Washington, DC 20005 New York, New York 10001 (202) 639-6000 (212) 229-1516 JENNY S. MARTINEZ ANDREW G. PATEL 559 Nathan Abbott Way 111 Broadway, 13th Floor Stanford, California 94305 New York, New York 10006 (650) 725-2749 (212) 349-0230 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the President has the authority to imprison as an “enemy combatant” an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat. 2. Whether, if the President has such authority, (a) there are limitations on the circumstances in which such authority may be exercised and the length of time an individual may be imprisoned, and (b) the individual detained may challenge the President’s assertion of that authority at a meaningful hearing with the assistance of counsel. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................... iv STATEMENT ....................................1 REASONS TO DENY THE PETITION ..............10 A. Review By This Court Is Not Warranted Because The Court Of Appeals’ Holding On The Scope Of The President’s Authority Was Both Correct And Narrow. .............. 11 1. The Court of Appeals Correctly Held that Both the Constitution and Section 4001(a) Require that the Military Detention of American Citizens on American Soil Must Be Supported by Clear and Unmistakable Congressional Authorization.
    [Show full text]