DOCSLIB.ORG

Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Warley 108 Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. 48 Buck v. Bell 108 Baker v. Carr 49 Warren E. Burger 109 Henry Baldwin 49 Burstyn v. Wilson 113 Bank of Augusta v. Earle 51 Harold H. Burton 113 Bankruptcy Law and the U.S. Supreme Court 51 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 114 Philip P. Barbour 59 Bush v. Gore 116 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 60 Busing for Desegregation 118 Barron v. Baltimore 61 Pierce Butler 120 Batson v. Kentucky 61 United States v. Butler 121 Baze v. Rees 62 James F. Byrnes 122 Bearden v. Georgia 63 Berghuis v. Thompkins 64 Calder v. Bull 123 Bill of Attainder 65 California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 124 v John A. Campbell 125 Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia 204 Capital Punishment 126 Cooper v. Aaron 204 Capitalism 132 Right to Counsel 205 Benjamin N. Cardozo 135 Court-Packing Plan 207 United States v. Carolene Products Co. 136 Craig v. Boren 209 John Catron 137 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 210 Censorship 138 United States v. Cruikshank 211 Writ of Certiorari 143 Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 212 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 145 Benjamin R. Curtis 213 Salmon P. Chase 146 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. 214 Samuel Chase 148 William Cushing 214 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 149 Peter V. Daniel 215 Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad United States v. Darby Lumber Co. 216 Co. v. Chicago 150 Dartmouth College v. Woodward 217 Chief Justice 151 David Davis 217 Chimel v. California 154 William R. Day 218 Chinese Exclusion Cases 155 In re Debs 219 Chisholm v. Georgia 155 DeJonge v. Oregon 220 Christian Legal Society v. Martinez 156 Delegation of Powers 220 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah 157 Right to Die 222 Circuit Riding 158 Disparate Impact 224 Citizenship 158 Dissents 231 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 161 District of Columbia v. Heller 234 Civil Law 163 Diversity Jurisdiction 236 Civil Rights Cases 165 Dolan v. City of Tigard 237 Civil Rights Movement 165 Dombrowski v. Pfister 237 Civil War 168 Double Jeopardy 238 Tom C. Clark 172 William O. Douglas 240 Clark v. Arizona 174 Procedural Due Process 242 John H. Clarke 175 Substantive Due Process 243 Clark v. Arizona 176 Duncan v. Kahanamoku 246 Clerks of the Justices 177 Duncan v. Louisiana 247 Nathan Clifford 179 Gabriel Duvall 248 Clinton v. City of New York 180 Coker v. Georgia 180 United States v. E. C. Knight Co. 248 Clinton v. Jones 181 Edwards v. Aguillard 249 Cohen v. California 182 Edwards v. California 250 Cold War 182 Eighth Amendment 251 Collector v. Day 184 Elastic Clause 263 Comity Clause 185 Eleventh Amendment 264 Regulation of Commerce 186 Elk v. Wilkins 266 Common Law 189 Oliver Ellsworth 267 Conference of the Justices 190 Employment Discrimination 267 Constitutional Interpretation 192 Employment Division, Department of Constitutional Law 197 Human Resources v. Smith 270 Freedom of Contract 201 Engel v. Vitale 271 Contracts Clause 202 Environmental Law and the Court 271 vi Epperson v. Arkansas 284 Gibbons v. Ogden 366 Equal Protection Clause 285 Gideon v. Wainwright 367 Espionage Acts 289 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 368 Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township 291 Gitlow v. New York 370 Evolution and Creationism 291 Glossip v. Gross 371 Exclusionary Rule 293 Arthur J. Goldberg 372 Executive Agreements 296 Goldwater v. Carter 374 Executive Orders 298 Gonzales v. Carhart 374 Executive Privilege 301 Good News Club v. Milford Central School 375 Graham v. Florida 376 Federalism 303 Grandfather Clause 377 Fedorenko v. United States 307 Gratz v. Bollinger/Grutter v. Bollinger 378 Ferguson v. City of Charleston 308 Horace Gray 378 Stephen J. Field 308 Greer v. Spock 379 Fifteenth Amendment 310 Gregg v. Georgia 380 Fifth Amendment 313 Robert C. Grier 381 First Amendment 317 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 381 Fisher v. University of Texas 320 Griswold v. Connecticut 382 Flag desecration 322 Guarantee Clause 383 Fletcher v. Peck 325 Flint v. Stone Tracy Company 327 Habeas Corpus 384 Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders Hall v. Florida 385 of County of Burlington 328 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 386 Florida v. Bostick 329 Hammer v. Dagenhart 387 Florida v. Jardines 330 John M. Harlan II 388 Ford v. Wainwright 331 John Marshall Harlan 389 Abe Fortas 332 Harmelin v. Michigan 392 Foster v. Chatman 334 Hate Speech 392 Fourteenth Amendment 335 Hayburn’s Case 394 Fourth Amendment 338 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 395 Fullilove v. Klutznick 341 Hirabayashi v. United States 395 Felix Frankfurter 342 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 396 Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association 344 Oliver Wendell Holmes 397 Frontiero v. Richardson 345 Holt v. Hobbs 400 Full Faith and Credit Clause 345 Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell 401 Melville W. Fuller 347 Housing Discrimination 402 Housing of the Court 403 Hudson v. Michigan 405 Charles Evans Hughes 406 VOLUME 2 Ward Hunt 408 Hurtado v. California 409 Fundamental Rights 347 Magazine v. Falwell 410 Furman v. Georgia 351 Hutto v. Davis 410 Hylton v. United States 411 Garcia v. San Antonio MetropolitanTransit Authority 352 Gay and Lesbian Rights 352 Illegitimacy 412 Gender Issues 358 Illinois v. Caballes 414 General Welfare Clause 363 Immigration and Naturalization Laws 415 Gerrymandering 364 Income Tax 423 vii Inverse Incorporation 424 Loyalty Oaths 500 Incorporation Doctrine 426 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 502 James Iredell 429 Horace H. Lurton 503 Howell E. Jackson 430 McCleskey v. Kemp 504 Robert H. Jackson 432 McCleskey v. Zant 504 Japanese American Relocation 434 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 505 John Jay 438 McCray v. United States 505 Thomas Johnson 439 McCulloch v. Maryland 506 William Johnson 440 McDonald v. Chicago 507 Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh 442 Joseph McKenna 508 Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County 443 John McKinley 509 Johnson v. Zerbst 443 John McLean 511 United States v. Jones 444 James C. McReynolds 512 Judicial Activism 446 Malloy v. Hogan 513 Judicial Review 447 Mapp v. Ohio 514 Judicial Scrutiny 452 Marbury v. Madison 515 Judicial Self-Restraint 456 John Marshall 517 Judiciary Act of 1789 459 Thurgood Marshall 519 Trial by Jury 462 Maryland v. Buie 522 Maryland v. King 523 Elena Kagan 463 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 525 Katz v.United States 467 Massiah v. United States 526 Kelo v. City of New London 467 Stanley Matthews 526 Anthony M. Kennedy 468 Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Kennedy v. Louisiana 470 Communications Commission 528 Keyishian v. Board of Regents 472 Meyer v. Nebraska 529 Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis 472 Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz 529 King v. Burwell 473 Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency 530 Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District 474 Military Law and the Supreme Court 531 Korematsu v. United States 475 Miller v. California; Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 538 Kyllo v. United States 476 Samuel F. Miller 539 Ex parte Milligan 540 Labor Law and the Supreme Court 476 Milliken v. Bradley 541 Joseph R. Lamar 486 Minor v. Happersett 542 Lucius Q. C. Lamar 487 Sherman Minton 542 Lawrence v. Texas 488 Miranda Rights 544 Lee v. Weisman 489 Miranda v. Arizona 546 Lemon v. Kurtzman 489 William H. Moody 548 United States v. Leon 490 Alfred Moore 549 Libel 491 Moore v. City of East Cleveland 550 License Cases 494 Mugler v. Kansas 550 Brockholst Livingston 494 Mulford v. Smith 551 Lochner v. New York 495 Munn v. Illinois 552 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 496 Frank Murphy 552 United States v. Lopez 497 Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber 498 Improvement Co. 553 Loving v. Virginia 499 Myers v. United States 554 viii National Association for the Advancment of Political Questions 619 Colored People v. Alabama 554 Poll Taxes 623 National Federation of Independent Business Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company 624 v.
Recommended publications
  • Reminiscences of the United States Supreme Court

    Reminiscences of the United States Supreme Court

    YALE LAW JO URNAL. REMINISCENCES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. On motion of Reverdy Johnson, at one time Attorney-General and afterward Senator in Congress from Maryland, I was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in 1865. Salmon P. Chase was then Chief Justice, and the associates were James M. Wayne, Robert C. Grier, Noah H. Swayne, David Davis, Samuel Nelson, Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller and Stephen J. Field. All of these, ex- cepting Justice Field,* are now dead. I was in Washington at the inauguration of Franklin Pierce in 1853 and attended some of the sessions of the Supreme Court at that time. That court then con- sisted of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice; John McLean, James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, Benjamin R. Curtis and John A. Campbell, associates, none of whom are now living. I never saw Taney, Catron or Daniel afterward, and have no very distinct impressions as to Catron or Daniel, but Chief Justice Taney was a noticeable man and his ap- pearance is still daguerreotyped upon my memory. He was a tall, angular and exceedingly slim man. Apparently there was little or no flesh upon his bones and his face was deeply furrowed by the ravages of time. His eyes surmounted by shaggy eyebrows were deeply set under a remarkably low forehead. There was a rough and rugged distinctness about all his features. He was appointed Chief Justice in 1836 and died in office when he was 88 years old. He was 8o years of age when he delivered the opinion of the court in the celebrated Dred Scott case.
  • 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

    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.
  • Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of

    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of

    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations.
  • 2007-2008 Annual Review

    2007-2008 Annual Review

    School for Advanced Research on the Human Experience A GALAXY OF THOUGHT Annual Review 2007–2008 SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH ON THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO ANNUAL REVIEW 2008 In Memory of Richard Canon 1940–2008 The School for Advanced Research gratefully acknowledges the very generous support of the Paloheimo Foundation for publication of this report. The Foundation’s grant honors the late Leonora Paloheimo and her mother, Leonora Curtin, who served on the Board of Managers of the School from 1933 to 1972. CONTENTS President’s Message: A Galaxy of Thought 4 Poet-in-Residence: Malena Mörling 34 A Constellation of Programs 6 The Poetics of the Human Experience 34 REFLECTION IMAGINATION Resident Scholar: Silvia Tomášková 8 Short Seminar: Women’s Empowerment for Health 36 SAR Press: The Chaco Experience 9 SAR Press: New Landscapes of Inequality 37 Visiting Research Associate: Monica L. Smith 10 SAR Press: The Gender of Globalization 38 Visiting Research Associate: James E. Snead 10 Advanced Seminar: Archaeology and Public Policy 39 SAR Press: The Hohokam Millennium 11 SAR Press: Opening Archaeology 40 Resident Scholar: Tiya Miles 12 Short Seminar: Archaeology and Sustainability 41 SAR Press: Small Worlds 13 Visiting Research Associate: Tutu Alicante: 41 The Pecos Conference 14 Michael S. Currier Environmental Service Short Seminar: Modernity and the Voice 14 Award Ceremony 42 SAR Press: Kenneth Chapman’s Santa Fe 15 Santa Fe Science Writers’ Workshop 42 SAR Press: Santa Fe: A History 16 SITE Santa Fe Biennial at SAR 43 SAR Prize Session in Dublin 17 Short Seminar: Indians and Energy 44 New Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance Conference 17 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ATTENTION Public Lectures: Humans in a Changing Landscape 46 J.
  • Does Eliminating Life Tenure for Article Iii Judges Require a Constitutional Amendment?

    Does Eliminating Life Tenure for Article Iii Judges Require a Constitutional Amendment?

    DOW & MEHTA_03_15_21 (DO NOT DELETE) 3/17/2021 6:41 PM DOES ELIMINATING LIFE TENURE FOR ARTICLE III JUDGES REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? DAVID R. DOW & SANAT MEHTA* ABSTRACT Beginning in the early 2000s, a number of legal academicians from across the political spectrum proposed eliminating life tenure for some or all Article III judges and replacing it with a term of years (or a set of renewable terms). These scholars were largely in agreement such a change could be accomplished only by a formal constitutional amendment of Article III. In this Article, Dow and Mehta agree with the desirability of doing away with life tenure but argue such a change can be accomplished by ordinary legislation, without the need for formal amendment. Drawing on both originalism and formalism, Dow and Mehta begin by observing that the constitutional text does not expressly provide for lifetime tenure; rather, it states that judges shall hold their office during good behavior. The good behavior criterion, however, was not intended to create judicial sinecures for 20 or 30 years, but instead aimed at safeguarding judicial independence from the political branches. By measuring both the length of judicial tenure among Supreme Court justices, as well as voting behavior on the Supreme Court, Dow and Mehta conclude that, in fact, life tenure has proven inconsistent with judicial independence. They maintain that the Framers’ objective of insuring judicial independence is best achieved by term limits for Supreme Court justices. Copyright © 2021 David R. Dow & Sanat Mehta. * David Dow is the Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Sanat Mehta, who graduated magna cum laude from Rice University in 2020 with a degree in computer science and a minor in Politics, Law, and Social Thought, is a data analyst at American Airlines.
  • Naval Affairs

    Naval Affairs

    .t .j f~Ji The New I American State Papers I ~ '* NAVAL AFFAIRS Volume 2 Diplomatic Activities Edited lJy K. Jack Bauer ~c:!:r~ourres Inc. I q8/ Leadership ofthe Navy Department 1798-1~61 Sea:etaries o/the NfZJJYl Benjamin Stoddert2 18 June 1798-31 March 1801 Robert Smith 27 July 1801-7 March 1809 Paul Hamilton 15 May 1809-31 December 1812 William Jones 19 January 1813-1 December 1814 Benjamin W. Crowninshield 16 January 1815-30 September 1818 Smith Thompson 1January 1819-31 August 1823 Samuel L. Southard 16 Septe~ber 1823-3 March 1829 John Branch 9 March 1829-.12 May 1831 Levi Woodbury 23 May 1831-30June 1834 Mahlon Dickerson 1July 1834-30June 1838 James K. Paulding 1July 1838-3 March 1841 George E. Badger 6 March 1841-11 September 1841 Abel P. Upshur 11 October 1841-23July 1843 David Henshaw 24 July 1843-18 February 1844 Thomas W. Gilmer 19 February 1844-28 February 1844 John Y. Mason 26 March 1844-10 March 1845 George Bancroft 11 March 1845-9 September 1846 John Y. Mason 10 September 1846-7. March 1849 William B. Preston 8 March 1849-23July 1850 William A. Graham 2 August 1850-25July 1852 John P. Kennedy 26 July 1852-7 March 1853 James C. 'Dobbin 8 March 1853-6 March 1857 Isaac Toucey 7 March 1857-6 March 1861 Board o/Naval Commissioners, 7 February 181'-)1 August 1842 Comm. John Rodgers3 25 April 1815-15 December 1824 Comm. Isaac Hull 25 April 1815-.30 November 1815 I Prior to 1798 naval affairs were administered by the War Department.
  • G:\Trimble Families, July 22, 1997.Wpd

    G:\Trimble Families, July 22, 1997.Wpd

    Trimble Families a Partial Listing of the Descendants of Some Colonial Families Revised Eugene Earl Trimble July 22, 1997 1 PREFACE This Trimble record deals primarily with the ancestral line of the writer and covers the period from the time of arrival of James Trimble (or Turnbull; born ca. 1705; died 1767) in America which may have been prior to March 11, 1734, until in most instances about 1850. Some few lines are, however, brought up to the present. The main purpose of this account is to present the earliest generations. With the census records from 1850 on, enumerating each individual, it is much easier to trace ancestors and descendants. Any one who has researched a family during the l700's knows how limited the available data are and how exceeding difficult the task is. One inevitably reaches the point where the search becomes more conjecture than fact, but man is an inquisitive creature and the lure of the unknown is irresistible. No attempt has been made to give all possible references. For this Trimble line and other Trimble lines the reader is referred to the 62 page manuscript on the Trimble Family by James Augustus LeConte (born Adairsville, Ga., July 19, 1870; died Atlanta, Ga., July 18, 1941) whose papers are at the University of Georgia at Athens; the Trimble Family research located in the Manuscript Department of The University of Virginia, by Kelley Walker Trimble (born Feb. 21, 1884; died Route l, Staunton, Va., after Feb. 12, 1955); the Trimble and related research and writings of Mrs. Jerome A.
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: State and Congressional Powers, 1801-1835 David P

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: State and Congressional Powers, 1801-1835 David P

    The University of Chicago Law Review Law__Review _VOLUME 49 NUMBER 4 FALL 1982 1982 by The University of Chicago The Constitution in the Supreme Court: State and Congressional Powers, 1801-1835 David P. Curriet This article is the third installment of an attempt to analyze and criticize the constitutional work of the Supreme Court in his- torical sequence, from the lawyer's point of view.' In the twelve years of its existence before the appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court began to de- velop lasting principles of constitutional adjudication, but it de- cided few significant constitutional questions. In the first decade of Marshall's tenure, apart from Marbury v. Madison,2 the Court's constitutional docket consisted almost entirely of relatively minor matters respecting the powers of the federal courts. Although im- t Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. I should like to thank my colleagues Frank Easterbrook, Richard Epstein, Richard Helmholz, Dennis Hutchinson, Stanton Krauss, Philip B. Kurland, Phil C. Neal, Rayman Solomon, and James B. White for their helpful comments and encouragement, and Locke Bowman and Paul Strella, Chicago class of 1982, for their valuable research assistance. I See Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1789-1801, 48 U. CHI. L. REv. 819 (1981) [hereinafter cited as Currie, Supreme Court, 1789-1801]; Currie, The Constitu- tion in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Courts, 1801-1835, 49 U. CH. L. REv. 646 (1982) [hereinafter cited as Currie, FederalCourts, 1801-1835]. These articles form the beginning of a study to be published in book form by The University of Chicago Press.
  • Table of Contents

    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.
  • Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. Pointe-au-Pic, Canada, July 25, 1928. My dear George: I have your letter of July 3d, and am delighted to read it and to follow you and Mrs. Sutherland in your delightful journey through Italy. My wife’s sister, Miss Maria Herron, has done a great deal of traveling in Italy and elsewhere, and she says that you have marked out for yourselves one of the most delightful trips in the World. I have been through part of it myself, and therefore know enough to congratulate you. I sincerely hope that you find Cadenabbia just as good now as it was when you wrote the letter, and that you find that your rest is accomplishing the result that your doctor had in mind. Of course we are most anxious about the election of Hoover, and I am bound to say that I think the Republicans feel that the chances are strongly in favor of Hoover’s election, but I don’t know how wisely they judge. There are so many cross currents in the election that it is hard to calculate what their effect will be, but as the campaign opens, it is fairly clear that the farm question is entirely out of the picture. Even old Norris says that they can not have another party, and the consequence is that if Smith is going to win, he has got to do it with New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and by a retention of all the southern States.
  • Supreme Court Justices

    Supreme Court Justices

    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
  • The Appointment of Hugo L. Black

    The Appointment of Hugo L. Black

    The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 41 NUMBER 1FALL 1973 A Klansman Joins the Court: The Appointment of Hugo L. Black William E. Leuchtenburgj I. THE NOMINATION On August 12, 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, rebounding from the worst setback of his long Presidency, took the first of a series of steps toward creating what historians would one day call "the Roose- velt Court." Galling defeat had come less than a month before when the Senate had killed his scheme to add a Justice to the Supreme Court for every member aged seventy or over who did not resign or retire. The original plan would have allowed the President to name as many as six new Justices, but after a bitter 168-day fight, the measure was buried, amid loud rejoicing from FDR's opponents. Roosevelt was not finished yet, however, for one legacy of the protracted struggle was the creation of a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and it was the President's prerogative to nominate a successor. The choice he finally made would trigger an acrimonious controversy and would have a momentous im- pact on the disposition of the Court. The vacancy resulted, at least indirectly, from Roosevelt's "Court- packing" plan. The President had advanced his bold proposal in February because he was frustrated by the performance of the Supreme Court, particularly the conservative "Four Horsemen"--Willis Van t De Witt Clinton Professor of History, Columbia University. This article is an expanded version of a paper presented as the second annual William Winslow Crosskey Lecture in Legal History at The University of Chicago Law School on February 28, 1973.