DOCSLIB.ORG

Thesupremecourt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

576 2 of 2 PRELIMINARYPRINT o.56(p 7–7;14–06 NTDSAE EOT at2 Part REPORTS STATES UNITED 1048–1096) 473–978; (Pp. 576 Vol. Volume 576 U. S. - Part 2 Pages 473–978; 1048–1096 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THESUPREMECOURT June 25 Through October 2, 2015 End of Term CHRISTINE LUCHOK FALLON reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the bound volume goes to press. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Publishing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 J USTICES of the SUPREMECOURT during the time of these reports JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief Justice. ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, Associate Justice. CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Associate Justice. STEPHEN BREYER, Associate Justice. SAMUEL A. ALITO, Jr., Associate Justice. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Associate Justice. ELENA KAGAN, Associate Justice. retired JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice. SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice. DAVID H. SOUTER, Associate Justice. ofącers of the court LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General. DONALD B. VERRILLI, Jr., Solicitor General. SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk. CHRISTINE LUCHOK FALLON, Reporter of Decisions. PAMELA TALKIN, Marshal. LINDA S. MASLOW, Librarian. i SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Allotment of Justices It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, and that such allotment be entered of record, effective September 28, 2010, viz.: For the District of Columbia Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. For the First Circuit, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice. For the Tenth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice. For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice. For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. September 28, 2010. (For next previous allotment, see 561 U. S., p. vi.) ii I NDEX (Vol. 576 U. S., Part 2) AIR POLLUTION. See Clean Air Act. ARIZONA. See Constitutional Law. ARMED CAREER CRIMINAL ACT OF 1984. See Constitutional Law. CLEAN AIR ACT. EPA emissions regulations—Hazardous air pollutants from power plants.—EPA interpreted 42 U. S. C. § 7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power plants. Michigan v. EPA, p. 743. CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING. See Constitutional Law. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Cruel and unusual punishment—Petitioners, death-row inmates, have failed to establish a likelihood of success on merits of their claim that Oklahoma’s use of midazolam in its lethal injection protocol violates Eighth Amendment. Glossip v. Gross, p. 863. Due process—Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984—Residual clause— Increased sentence for “violent felony.”—Imposing an increased sentence under Act’s residual clause—which defines a “violent felony” to include “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to an- other,” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)—violates due process. Johnson v. United States, p. 591. Due process—State licensing of marriage between two people of same sex—Recognition of out-of-state marriages.—Fourteenth Amendment re- quires a State to license a marriage between two people of same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of same sex when their mar- riage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Obergefell v. Hodges, p. 644. Elections Clause—Use of commission to adopt congressional dis- tricts.—Elections Clause and 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, p. 787. iii iv INDEX CRIMINAL LAW. See Constitutional Law. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. See Constitutional Law. DEATH PENALTY. See Constitutional Law. DISPARATE-IMPACT CLAIMS. See Fair Housing Act. DUE PROCESS. See Constitutional Law. EIGHTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. ELECTIONS CLAUSE. See Congressional Redistricting. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. See Clean Air Act. EXECUTION METHODS. See Constitutional Law. FAIR HOUSING ACT. Discrimination in housing—Disparate-impact claims.—Disparate- impact claims are cognizable under Act. Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., p. 519. FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS. See Patient Protection and Af- fordable Care Act. FIFTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES. See Patient Protection and Afford- able Care Act. HOUSING DISCRIMINATION. See Fair Housing Act. LETHAL-INJECTION PROTOCOL. See Constitutional Law. LOW-INCOME HOUSING. See Fair Housing Act. MARRIAGE. See Constitutional Law. OKLAHOMA. See Constitutional Law. PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. Tax credits—States with Federal Exchange.—Act’s tax credits are available to individuals in States that have a Federal Exchange. King v. Burwell, p. 473. POWER PLANTS. See Clean Air Act. REFERENDUMS. See Constitutional Law. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. See Constitutional Law. STANDING TO SUE. See Constitutional Law. INDEX v TAX CREDITS. See Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. TEXAS. See Fair Housing Act. WORDS AND PHRASES. “[C]onduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Johnson v. United States, p. 591. CUMULATIVE TABLE OF CASES REPORTED (Vol. 576 U. S., Parts 1 and 2) Note: All undesignated references herein to the United States Code are to the 2012 edition. Cases reported before page 1001 are those decided with opinions of the Court. Cases reported on page 1001 et seq. are those in which orders were entered. The page numbers are the same as they will be in the bound volume, thus making the permanent citations available upon publi- cation of this preliminary print. An individual attorney whose name appears on a brief filed with the Court will be listed in the United States Reports in connection with the opinion in the case concerning which the document is filed if he or she is a member of the Court's Bar at the time the case is argued. Page ABB AG; Republic of Iraq v. 1028 Abbott; Evenwel v. 1092 Abbott; Nixon v. 1006,1088 ABC Holding Co., Inc.; Miller v. 1079 Abdul-Aziz v. Ricci . 1002 Abiles v. United States . 1012 Accord v. Philip Morris USA Inc. 1005 Ace American Ins. Co.; Michigan Workers’ Comp. Ins. Agency v. 1004 Acevedo-Perez v. United States . 1037 Adan Franco v. United States . 1043 Adkins v. U. S. District Court . 1007,1086 Aerotek; McQueen v. 1059,1090 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kobold . 1048 Aguilera-Enchautegui v. United States . 1063 Aguirre v. Montgomery . 1024 Ahmad v. United States . 1061 Aiken v. Pastrana . 1080 Air Line Pilots Assn., Int’l; Mackenzie v. 1056 Ajaelo v. Los Angeles County . 1056 Akebia Therapeutics, Inc.; FibroGen, Inc. v. 1092 Alabama; Bland v. ..................................... 1058 Alabama; Lockhart v. 1031 vii viii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Alabama; Scott v. ..................................... 1031 Alan M. Cass & Assoc.; Bob v. 1007 Alarcon v. United States . 1043 Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Aurora Energy Services v. 1004 Alberto Lopez v. United States . 1062 Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve Univ. 1006 Aledo Independent School Dist.; G. M. v. 1004 Alejandro-Montanez v. United States . 1062 Allah v. D’Ilio . 1059 Allamvasutak Zrt.; Fischer v. 1006 Allan v. United States . 1065 Allebban v. United States . 1023 Allegheny Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 1037 Allergan, Inc.; Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. 1054 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jimenez . 1028 Amedisys, Inc. v. Public Employees’ Retirement System of Miss. 1055 American Bottling Co.; Potts v. 1036 American Civil Liberties Union of N. C.; Berger v. 1048 American Home Assurance Co. v. Tennessee . 1036 Americold Logistics, LLC v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. 1094 Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. United States . 1055 Anderson v. United States . 1079 Anderson; Welton v. 1056 Andrade Calles v. Superior Court of Cal. 1086 Angel Mendez v. Stephens . 1024 Anghel v. New York State Dept. of Health . 1056 Annucci; Dorn v. ...................................... 1023 Aponte-Carrasco v. United States . 1062 Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc. 1036 Arakji v. Hess . 1089 Aransas Project v. Shaw . 1035 Arbodela v. United States . 1011 Archer v. Florida . 1059 Ariegwe v. Kirkegard . 1019 Arizona Ind. Redistricting Comm’n; Arizona State Legislature v. 787 Arizona Ind. Redistricting Comm’n; Harris v. 1082,1083 Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Ind. Redistricting Comm’n 787 Arkansas; Canada v. 1038 Arkansas; Ehler v. 1060 Arkansas; Millsap v. 1085 Arlington County Dept. of Human Services; Heffernan v. 1037 Arroyo v. United States . 1079 ASARCO LLC; Baker Botts L. L. P. v. 121 Askew v. United States . 1086 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED ix Page Assadinia v. Pennsylvania . 1056 Associated Builders & Contractors Inc. v. Shiu . 1022 Atalese; U. S. Legal Services Group, L. P. v. 1004 Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. Allergan, Inc. 1054 Atkinson; Ferranti v. 1010 Attorney General; Coates v. 1086 Attorney General; Enos v. 1055 Attorney General; Esparza de Rubio v. 1037 Attorney General; Ladeairous v. 1085 Attorney General; Lucien v. 1018 Attorney General; Luna Torres v. 1053,1089 Attorney General; Madrigal-Barcenas v. 1001 Attorney General; Mellouli v. 1089 Attorney General; Mohamed v. 1005 Attorney General; Ramon Tarango v. 1037,1090 Attorney General; Salado-Alva v.
Recommended publications

  • DOCUMENY RESUME CG 016 510 White House Conference on Aging

    DOCUMENY RESUME ED 227 382 CG 016 510 TITLE White House Conference on Aging (Washington, D.C., November 30-December 3, 1981). Final Report. VOlume, 2: Process Proceedings. INSTfTUTION Whitellouse Conference on Aging, Washington, D..C. SPONS AGENCY Department of Health and Human $ervices, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 81 NOTE 141p.; For related documents, see tD-215257-269 And CG 016 509-511. - PUB TYPE Collected Works - ConIerence,Proceedings (021) -- Reports - General (140 . EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 PlUs.Postage. DESCRIp7ORS Aging (Individuals); Committees; Conferendes; *Economic Climate; *Federal Legislation; Gerontology; *Governthent Role; History; Human ServiCes; *Older Adults; Quality of Life; Retirement IDENTIFIERS *White House Conference on Aging ABSTRACT This secopd volume of the final report of the 1981 White House Conference on Aging.presents a historicaloverview of the Conference, tracing its history from its indeption as ajoin' resolution in Congress in 1979 through 'thenationwide preparatory activities, to its culmination with the gathering of delegates and observers in late November of 1981. Previous conferences areoutlined , and the eConomic climate at the time of the 1981Conferenc'e is .described. Enabling legislation and early preparations forthe conferenca are reviewed, and the conference processis described in detail. The texts of welcothing speeches and keynotead-dresses to the Conference delegates are also presented. Reports of the14 Conference' committeesare sumniarized. The appendices present the text ofthe 1981 White House Conference on Aging Act andprovide,lists of the . National Advisory Committee, the state-White House Confekence on ,Aging coordinatOrs, state Wbite House Conferences onAging, the technical committees, the mini-confeiences,_delegates,observers, international observers, official rules of procedure, Conference committee leadership, and the 1981 White House Conference onAging staff.
  • Maryland LGBTQ Historic Context Study Has Roots in an Earlier Project

    Maryland LGBTQ Historic Context Study Has Roots in an Earlier Project

    Maryland LGBTQ Historic Context Study By Susan Ferentinos, PhD With Benjamin Egerman For Preservation Maryland and Maryland Historical Trust September 30, 2020 Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2 PARAMETERS OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER TWO: ISSUES TO BE AWARE OF WHEN APPROACHING LGBTQ HISTORIC PRESERVATION..................... 11 CHANGING LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 13 LACK OF EVIDENCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 LACK OF INTEGRITY (OR EVEN SITES) ................................................................................................................................ 19 PRESERVATION OPTIONS BEYOND DESIGNATION ................................................................................................................ 23 PRESERVING SITES OF DIFFICULT HISTORY ........................................................................................................................
  • Remarks on Henry Friendly

    Remarks on Henry Friendly

    REMARKS ON HENRY FRIENDLY ON THE AWARD OF THE HENRY FRIENDLY MEDAL TO JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR Pierre N. Leval † RESIDENT RAMO CALLED ME a couple of days ago with a problem. Young people today (and this includes young- sters up to the age of 50) apparently do not know who Henry Friendly was or why the American Law Institute Pawards a medal in his name. Would I address those questions to- night? At first I was astonished by Roberta’s proposition. Friendly was revered as a god in the federal courts from 1958 to his death in 1986. In every area of the law on which he wrote, during a quarter century on the Second Circuit, his were the seminal and clarifying opinions to which everyone looked as providing and explaining the standards. Most of us who earn our keep by judging can expect to be de- servedly forgotten within weeks after we kick the bucket or hang up the robe and move to Florida. But for one whose judgments played † Pierre Leval is a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He delivered these remarks on October 20, 2011, at a dinner of the Council of the American Law Insti- tute. Copyright © 2012 Pierre N. Leval. 15 GREEN BAG 2D 257 Pierre N. Leval such a huge role, it is quite surprising – and depressing – that the memory of him has so rapidly faded. Later, a brief exploration why this might be so. I begin by recounting, for any who don’t know, what some pur- ple-robed eminences of the law have said about Friendly.
  • In the Indiana Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-02991 Brief Of

    In the Indiana Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-02991 Brief Of

    Received: 2/29/2020 11:08 PM In the Indiana Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-02991 Indiana Family Institute, Inc.; Indiana Family Ac- tion, Inc.; and The American Family Association of Indiana; Plaintiffs-Appellants v. The City of Carmel, Indiana; City Attorney for the Appeal from the City of Carmel, Indiana; Douglas Haney, in his offi- Hamilton County Superior Court 1 cial capacity as City Attorney for the City of Carmel, Indiana; The City of Indianapolis-Marion County, Case No. 29D01-1512-MI-010207 Indiana; The City of Indianapolis-Marion County Equal Opportunity Advisory Board; The City of Hon. Michael A. Casati, Judge Bloomington, Indiana; The City of Bloomington Human Rights Commission; The City of Columbus, Indiana; The City of Columbus Human Rights Commission; The State of Indiana; Attorney Gen- eral Curtis Hill, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Indiana; Defendants-Appellees Brief of Appellant American Family Association of Indiana James Bopp, Jr. Lead Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants [email protected] Richard E. Coleson [email protected] Melena S. Siebert [email protected] The Bopp Law Firm, PC 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: 812-232-2434 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants 1 BRIEF OF APPELLANT AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION OF INDIANA (“AFA”) Table of Contents Table of Contents . 2 Table of Authorities . 4 Statement of Issues . 5 Statement of Case . 6 Statement of Facts. 7 A. RFRAs have a strongly bipartisan history, same-sex marriage is recent, and this is a type of compelled-speech case called a forced-inclusion-expressive-association case.
  • Sip-In" That Drew from the Civil Rights Movement by History.Com, Adapted by Newsela Staff on 11.07.19 Word Count 887 Level 1020L

    Sip-In" That Drew from the Civil Rights Movement by History.Com, Adapted by Newsela Staff on 11.07.19 Word Count 887 Level 1020L

    The gay "sip-in" that drew from the civil rights movement By History.com, adapted by Newsela staff on 11.07.19 Word Count 887 Level 1020L Image 1. A bartender in Julius's Bar refuses to serve John Timmins, Dick Leitsch, Craig Rodwell and Randy Wicker, members of the Mattachine Society, an early American gay rights group, who were protesting New York liquor laws that prevented serving gay customers on April 21, 1966. Photo from: Getty Images/Fred W. McDarrah. In 1966, on a spring afternoon in Greenwich Village, three men set out to change the political and social climate of New York City. After having gone from one bar to the next, the men reached a cozy tavern named Julius'. They approached the bartender, proclaimed they were gay and then requested a drink, but were promptly denied service. The trio had accomplished their goal: their "sip-in" had begun. The men belonged to the Mattachine Society, an early organization dedicated to fighting for gay rights. They wanted to show that bars in the city discriminated against gay people. Discrimination against the gay community was a common practice at the time. Still, this discrimination was less obvious than the discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the South that forced racial segregation. Bartenders Refused Service To Gay Couples This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. A person's sexual orientation couldn't be detected as easily as a person's sex or race. With that in mind, the New York State Liquor Authority, a state agency that controls liquor sales, took action.
  • Annual Report

    Annual Report

    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1996-June 30,1997 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-1789 Tel. (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www. foreignrela tions. org e-mail publicaffairs@email. cfr. org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, 1997-98 Officers Directors Charlayne Hunter-Gault Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 1998 Frank Savage* Chairman of the Board Peggy Dulany Laura D'Andrea Tyson Maurice R. Greenberg Robert F Erburu Leslie H. Gelb Vice Chairman Karen Elliott House ex officio Leslie H. Gelb Joshua Lederberg President Vincent A. Mai Honorary Officers Michael P Peters Garrick Utley and Directors Emeriti Senior Vice President Term Expiring 1999 Douglas Dillon and Chief Operating Officer Carla A. Hills Caryl R Haskins Alton Frye Robert D. Hormats Grayson Kirk Senior Vice President William J. McDonough Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Paula J. Dobriansky Theodore C. Sorensen James A. Perkins Vice President, Washington Program George Soros David Rockefeller Gary C. Hufbauer Paul A. Volcker Honorary Chairman Vice President, Director of Studies Robert A. Scalapino Term Expiring 2000 David Kellogg Cyrus R. Vance Jessica R Einhorn Vice President, Communications Glenn E. Watts and Corporate Affairs Louis V Gerstner, Jr. Abraham F. Lowenthal Hanna Holborn Gray Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Deputy National Director George J. Mitchell Janice L. Murray Warren B. Rudman Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2001 Karen M. Sughrue Lee Cullum Vice President, Programs Mario L. Baeza and Media Projects Thomas R.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 142 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996 No. 95 House of Representatives The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was floor in a wheelchair, but he was abso- is New Jersey's largest circulation called to order by the Speaker. lutely, totally dedicated to serving. He daily, which essentially addressed the f loved this House. He loved the process issue of health insurance reform as of dealing with issues and problems and well as medical savings accounts and MORNING BUSINESS helping people, and he loved the inter- pointed out how significant this legis- The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the action between human beings. lation is in terms of providing addi- order of the House of May 12, 1995, the I think all of us are a little poorer tional health insurance for many Chair will now recognize Members from and all of us in the House I think on Americans who lose their health insur- lists submitted by the majority and both sides of the aisle are certainly a ance when they lose a job or because of minority leaders for morning hour de- little sadder at the loss of this fine, a prior medical condition. bates. The Chair will alternate recogni- wonderful gentleman who passed away The editorial also details to some ex- tion between the parties, with each over the weekend. I simply wanted to tent, I would say, why we should not party limited to not to exceed 30 min- share with the House those thoughts on include medical savings accounts if we utes, and each Member except the ma- behalf I think of all the Members of the ever want to see health insurance re- jority and minority leaders limited to House.
  • The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism

    The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism

    Emory Law Journal Volume 63 Issue 4 2014 The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism Garrick B. Pursley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation Garrick B. Pursley, The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism, 63 Emory L. J. 781 (2014). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol63/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PURSLEY GALLEYSPROOFS 4/3/2014 2:50 PM THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SAFEGUARDS OF FEDERALISM ∗ Garrick B. Pursley ABSTRACT This Article provides the first systematic account of the relationship between campaign finance and federalism. Federalism—a fundamental characteristic of the constitutional structure—depends for its stability on political mechanisms. States and their advocates and representatives in Congress, federal agencies, political parties, intergovernmental lobbying groups, and other political forums work together to check federal interference with state governments. Entire normative theories of federalism depend on the assumption that this system of political safeguards is working effectively in the background. But the federalism and constitutional theory literatures lack a rigorous account of the effects of dramatic political change on pro-federalism political dynamics. Building that account is particularly timely now. Political safeguards work only if states retain significant political influence. But, as recent elections vividly demonstrate, Citizens United has created a new class of political operators—of which Super PACs are emblematic—whose potential political influence may be limitless.
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    No. 11-1179 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., fka WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. STEVE BULLOCK, Attorney General of Montana, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Montana --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF RETIRED JUSTICES OF THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT AND JUSTICE AT STAKE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMY POEHLING EDDY Counsel of Record BOTTOMLY EDDY & SANDLER, PLLP 1230 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-3303 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 5 I. The dramatic increase in independent ex- penditures in judicial elections has ad- versely impacted the judiciary’s effective functioning ................................................... 7 A. Judicial election spending
  • Aviation Law Mark A

    Aviation Law Mark A

    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 48 | Issue 2 Article 13 1983 Aviation Law Mark A. Dombroff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Mark A. Dombroff, Aviation Law, 48 J. Air L. & Com. 453 (1983) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol48/iss2/13 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. Book Reviews AVIATION LAW by Andreas F. Lowenfeld. New York: Matthew Bender & Co., 1981 Edition. pp. 1411. In 1972, Andreas Lowenfeld published the first edition of AVIATION LAW.' In the introduction to that book, Professor Lowenfeld related the challenge presented by Judge Henry Friendly: Some years ago, Judge Henry Friendly, who made his career in large part as a brilliant and imaginative general counsel for Pan American World Airways, reviewed an earlier attempt to collect materials on aviation law by asking whether it made sense to treat this subject at all. "In order to make out a case for separate treatment," he wrote, "it must be shown that the heads of a given subject can be examined in a more illuminating fashion with reference to each other than with references to other branches of law." With respect to the book under review, Judge Friendly's answer was "a resounding no."' Professor Lowenfeld went on to accept the challenge and in the seven chapters of the first edition of AVIATION LAW presented the reader with an overview of the economic, regulatory, tort, and social considerations that have grown up in the law relating to the aviation industry.
  • Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals

    Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF
  • STONEWALL INN, 51-53 Christopher Street, Manhattan Built: 1843 (51), 1846 (53); Combined with New Façade, 1930; Architect, William Bayard Willis

    STONEWALL INN, 51-53 Christopher Street, Manhattan Built: 1843 (51), 1846 (53); Combined with New Façade, 1930; Architect, William Bayard Willis

    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 23, 2015, Designation List 483 LP-2574 STONEWALL INN, 51-53 Christopher Street, Manhattan Built: 1843 (51), 1846 (53); Combined with New Façade, 1930; architect, William Bayard Willis Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan, Tax Map Block 610, Lot 1 in part consisting of the land on which the buildings at 51-53 Christopher Street are situated On June 23, 2015 the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of the Stonewall Inn as a New York City Landmark and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No.1). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of the law. Twenty-seven people testified in favor of the designation including Public Advocate Letitia James, Council Member Corey Johnson, Council Member Rosie Mendez, representatives of Comptroller Scott Stringer, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Assembly Member Deborah Glick, State Senator Brad Hoylman, Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer, Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, the Real Estate Board of New York, the Historic Districts Council, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Family Equality Council, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks Conservation Association, SaveStonewall.org, the Society for the Architecture of the City, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, New York City, as well as three participants in the Stonewall Rebellion—Martin Boyce, Jim Fouratt, and Dr. Gil Horowitz (Dr. Horowitz represented the Stonewall Veterans Association)—and historians David Carter, Andrew Dolkart, and Ken Lustbader. In an email to the Commission on May 21, 2015 Benjamin Duell, of Duell LLC the owner of 51-53 Christopher Street, expressed his support for the designation.