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 2637 TABLE OF CASES Page 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987)........................................................ 2303, 2612 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)....... 1275, 1277–78, 2308, 2540, 2634 A A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)......................................................................... 1317–18, 2630 A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964)...................................... 1317, 1410, 2482 A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355 (1962).............................................. 1712 A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).................. 332, 334–36 A. T. & T. Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232 (1936)......................................................... 1576 A.L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961)................................. 767–68 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)...... 77–78, 83–84, 91–92, 94, 203–05, 580 Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F.Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark. 1959)......................................................... 514 Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971)............................................................................... 2209 Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)............................................................. 1487–88 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).................................................. 755, 764 Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007).................................................... 1738, 2548 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)............................................................... 318, 1397 Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 (1931)....................................................... 1850, 1888 Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)...... 736, 1064, 1075, 1081–82, 1102–03, 1105, 1109, 1119–20, 2479 Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859).......................................... 795, 889, 893, 980 Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977).................................................................... 1490 Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977)................. 1147, 1195–98, 1224, 1249, 2550 Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1986)......................................................... 1567 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)............. 367, 1144, 1147, 1157, 1159, 1199, 1292 Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954).................................................................... 1565 Achison v. Huddleson, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 293 (1852)......................................................... 2383 ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000)................................................................. 1328–29 Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995)....................... 1176, 1326 Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1988)............................ 1326 Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 932 F.2d 1504 (D.C. Cir. 1991)............................ 1326 Action v. Gannon, 450 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1971).............................................................. 2248 Adair v. Bank of America Ass’n, 303 U.S. 350 (1938).......................................................... 320 Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908)............................. 207, 1586, 1865–66, 2333, 2627 Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 (1938)............................................................... 936, 1999, 2019 Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978)................................. 718, 880, 886 Adams Express Co. v. City of New York, 232 U.S. 14 (1914)............................................. 2559 Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (1913)............................................. 1883, 2583 Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U.S. 129 (1907)....................................................... 2404 Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 214 U.S. 218 (1909)....................................................... 2406 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 165 U.S. 194 (1897).............................................................. 1916 Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307 (1938)......................................................... 237, 2454 Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643 (1st Cir. 1990)................................................................... 1567 Adams v. City of Milwaukee, 228 U.S. 572 (1913)................................................... 1901, 2125 Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278 (1972)...................................................................... 772, 1686 Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179 (1954).................................................. 1020, 1522, 1524–25 Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 (1904)................................................................ 1388, 1460 Adams v. Storey, 1 Fed. Cas. 141 (No. 66) (C.C.D.N.Y. 1817).............................................. 319 2639 2640 TABLE OF CASES Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590 (1917)............................................. 1870–71, 1892, 2417, 2629 Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980)................................................................................. 1649 Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).................................................................. 1407, 1420 Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)......................... 1061, 1063, 1065, 1522, 1672, 2629 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)........................ 803, 1573, 2165, 2634 Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).................................................... 1169, 1172, 1335–36 Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)................................................................. 2024, 2077 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).................................................... 2082, 2244 Adirondack Ry. v. New York, 176 U.S. 335 (1900)............................................................... 425 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)... 376, 797, 799, 1586, 1861, 1863–64, 2337, 2625 Adler v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 485 (1952)........................ 764, 1207, 1209, 1218, 1979, 2629 Advance-Rumely Co. v. Jackson, 287 U.S. 283 (1932)....................................................... 1887 Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 295 U.S. 285 (1935)............... 2121 Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004)..................................................... 278, 2617 Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 275 U.S. 440 (1928)..................................................................... 1870 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389 (1924).................................................. 958, 2428 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937)............................... 692, 725–26, 760, 766 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389 (1937)......................................................... 1702 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LaVoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986)........................................................... 2040 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Tremblay, 223 U.S. 185 (1912).......................................................... 965 AFGE v. Pierce, 697 F.2d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1982)................................................................... 154 AFL v. American Sash & Door Co., 335 U.S. 538 (1949).......................... 292, 1194, 1865, 1867 AFL v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321 (1941).................................................................................. 1346 Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).................... 305, 307, 309, 312–13, 1840–41, 2349, 2629 Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, 570 U.S. ___, No. 12–10, slip op. (2013)................................................................................................................. 1262, 2374 Ager v. Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (1882).................................................................................. 338 Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980)......................... 1602, 1611, 1613–15, 1850, 1897 Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)............................... 1384, 1408, 1425, 1463, 1467 Agnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36 (1897)..................................................................... 2048 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)........................... 803, 1074, 1076, 1086, 1091–92, 2634 Agosto v. INS, 436 U.S. 748 (1978).................................................................................... 886 Agsalud v. Standard Oil Co., 454 U.S. 801 (1981)............................................................. 2608 Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).............................. 1076, 1085–86, 1089, 1091–92, 2634 Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)....................................................... 1403, 1405–08, 2632 Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U.S. 500 (1905)........................................................................... 1904 Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948)........................................................................ 714, 2630 Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194 (1904)......................................................................... 1886 Air Courier Conf. v. American Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. 517 (1991)......................... 755 Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa Corp.,
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]
  • Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole Or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States
    ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2117 VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:53 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 8221 Sfmt 8221 C:\CONAN\CON063.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON063 VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:53 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 8221 Sfmt 8221 C:\CONAN\CON063.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON063 ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1. Act of Sept. 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 81, § 13, in part). Provision that ‘‘. [the Supreme Court] shall have power to issue . writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any . persons holding office, under authority of the United States’’ as applied to the issue of mandamus to the Sec- retary of State requiring him to deliver to plaintiff a commission (duly signed by the President) as justice of the peace in the District of Co- lumbia held an attempt to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Su- preme Court, fixed by Article III, § 2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803). 2. Act of Feb. 20, 1812 (2 Stat. 677). Provisions establishing board of revision to annul titles conferred many years previously by governors of the Northwest Territory were held violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 160 (1868). 3. Act of Mar. 6, 1820 (3 Stat. 548, § 8, proviso).
    [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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole Or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States
    ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2269 ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1. Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 81, § 13, in part). Provision that “[the Supreme Court] shall have power to issue . writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any . persons holding office, under authority of the United States” as applied to the issue of mandamus to the Secretary of State requiring him to deliver to plaintiff a commission (duly signed by the President) as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia held an attempt to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, fixed by Article III, § 2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803). 2. Act of February 20, 1812 (2 Stat. 677). Provisions establishing board of revision to annul titles conferred many years previously by governors of the Northwest Territory were held violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 160 (1868). 3. Act of March 6, 1820 (3 Stat. 548, § 8, proviso). The Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery within the Louisi- ana Territory north of 36°30' except Missouri, held not warranted as a regulation of Territory belonging to the United States under Article IV, § 3, clause 2 (and see Fifth Amendment). Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). Concurring: Taney, C.J. Concurring specially: Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, Catron Dissenting: McLean, Curtis 4.
    [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]