Buchanan v. Warley | 245 U.S. 60 (1917) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Buchanan v. Warley| Justia Law
Buchanan v. Warley| Justia Law
Zivotofsky v. Kerry: Under the Reception Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only the President may grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign, and Congress may not pass a law under its own authority to grant formal recognition or require the President to override a prior official determination of recognition.| Justia Law
Reid v. Covert: Constitutional protections are not suspended for U.S. citizens in foreign countries, so they are not subject to military jurisdiction. Also, the Constitution supersedes international treaties.| Justia Law
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.: The President has exclusive power over foreign policy and does not need Congress to delegate power to the executive branch in this area.| Justia Law
DOBBERT v. WAINWRIGHT| Justia Law
Michaelson v. United States| Justia Law
NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc.| Justia Law
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union| Justia Law
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell: The First Amendment protects parodies of celebrities or other public figures, even if they are aimed to cause distress to their targets.| Justia Law
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.: Liability in defamation cases against individuals cannot be imposed without fault, but states otherwise can craft their own defamation laws. However, plaintiffs are limited to actual damages if the state does not require actual malice to be shown.| Justia Law
Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist.: Since First Amendment protections extend to students in public schools, educational authorities who want to censor speech will need to show that permitting the speech would significantly interfere with the discipline needed for the school to function.| Justia Law
Graham v. Connor: A claim of excessive force by law enforcement during an arrest, stop, or other seizure of an individual is subject to the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment, rather than a substantive due process standard under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the facts and circumstances related to the use of force should drive the analysis, rather than any improper intent or motivation by the officer who used force.| Justia Law
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.: If they are not arbitrary or unreasonable, zoning ordinances are constitutional under the police power of local governments as long as they have some relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.| Justia Law
Elgin v. Department of Treasury: Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., certain federal employees could obtain administrative and judicial review of specified...| Justia Law
Reed v. Town of Gilbert: Even if it does not single out any viewpoint for oppression, a law that precludes public discussion on an entire topic is content-based on its face and is subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.| Justia Law
Hill v. Colorado: Valid time, place, and manner regulations under the First Amendment must be designed to serve a significant and legitimate government purpose, contain content-neutral restrictions, and be narrowly tailored so that ample alternative avenues of communication remain available.| Justia Law
Ward v. Rock Against Racism: The government does not need to choose the least restrictive alternative in imposing time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.| Justia Law
Boos v. Barry: Content-specific regulations on protected free speech must meet strict scrutiny, which means that they must be narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.| Justia Law
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.: Congress has the authority to regulate intrastate activities that significantly affect interstate commerce, directly or indirectly.| Justia Law
United States v. Wong Kim Ark| Justia Law
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.| Justia Law
Dawson v. Delaware| Justia Law
Justices of Boston Mun. Ct. v. Lydon| Justia Law
United States v. Feola| Justia Law
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn.: An agency does not need to use notice and comment procedures when issuing a new interpretation of a rule that is significantly different from a previous interpretation. The APA's less stringent procedural requirements are the limits of what an agency can be compelled to do.| Justia Law
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC| Justia Law
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services| Justia Law
Plyler v. Doe: A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved.| Justia Law
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist.| Justia Law
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy| Justia Law
Romer v. Evans: Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state cannot amend its constitution to deny homosexuals the same basic legal protections that heterosexuals receive.| Justia Law
United States v. Alvarez: The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals and provides an enhanced penalty if the Congressional Medal of...| Justia Law
Roth v. United States: Later superseded by another decision, this ruling held that the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech.| Justia Law
United States v. O'Brien: Since the government has an important interest in an effective draft system, the First Amendment does not void a law against burning draft cards, especially since the act of burning a draft card does not implicate a substantial speech interest.| Justia Law
Roe v. Wade: A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.| Justia Law
United Jewish Organizations v. Carey| Justia Law
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler| Justia Law
City of Mobile v. Bolden: A municipal electoral system is constitutional if it does not have a discriminatory purpose, even if it has a discriminatory effect.| Justia Law
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.| Justia Law
Lawrence v. Texas: A Texas law criminalizing consensual, sexual conduct between individuals of the same sex violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.| Justia Law
Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ.| Justia Law
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke: Affirmative action programs that take race into account can continue to play a role in the college admissions process, since creating a diverse classroom environment is a compelling state interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. State universities go too far, however, when they set a certain quota for the number of minority students who enroll.| Justia Law
Gomillion v. Lightfoot: A state has violated the Fifteenth Amendment when it constructs the boundary lines between electoral districts for the purpose of denying equal representation to African-Americans.| Justia Law
Smith v. California| Justia Law
Cornelius v. NAACP Leg. Def. Fund| Justia Law
Davis v. Bandemer| Justia Law
Karcher v. Daggett| Justia Law
Wesberry v. Sanders: Congressional districts must have roughly equal populations if this is feasible.| Justia Law
Griswold v. Connecticut: A right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal.| Justia Law
Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel| Justia Law
Bolling v. Sharpe: Mirroring the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court ruled that school segregation by race in the District of Columbia was as unconstitutional as school segregation by race in the states.| Justia Law
Lovell v. City of Griffin| Justia Law
Kohl v. United States| Justia Law
Kelo v. New London: Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens.| Justia Law
United States v. Chadwick| Justia Law
Grutter v. Bollinger: The use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy of a public educational institution does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if the policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of promoting a diverse student body, and if it uses a holistic process to evaluate each applicant, as opposed to a quota system.| Justia Law
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n: Limiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by groups such as corporations, labor unions, or other collective entities violates the First Amendment because limitations constitute a prior restraint on speech.| Justia Law
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC: Requiring TV networks to devote some channels to local broadcast stations is permissible under the First Amendment because it furthers an important government interest and does not burden speech substantially more than necessary.| Justia Law
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo: Newspapers are not required to publish replies to an editorial with which people, such as the subject of the editorial, may disagree.| Justia Law
United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.| Justia Law
District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.| Justia Law
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry| Justia Law
Marbury v. Madison: Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.| Justia Law
Lamont v. Postmaster General| Justia Law
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan| Justia Law
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony| Justia Law
Blum v. Yaretsky: Due process does not require a hearing when a private nursing home chooses to transfer or discharge Medicaid-eligible patients.| Justia Law
Terry v. Ohio: Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."| Justia Law
Brandenburg v. Ohio: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.| Justia Law
Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council: The First Amendment is intended to protect the hearers as well as the speakers of protected speech, so it protects commercial speech because consumers have an interest in the free flow of advertising information.| Justia Law
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n: A government agency cannot impose a condition when granting a private property owner's building permit unless the condition has a rational nexus connecting it to a legitimate government interest.| Justia Law
Miller v. California: Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It also must appeal to the prurient interest in the view of an average person according to community standards, and it must describe sexual conduct or excretory functions in an offensive way.| Justia Law
County of Allegheny v. ACLU: The Establishment Clause prohibits placing religious symbols on public property if it results in promoting religion.| Justia Law
United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.| Justia Law
Thornburg v. Gingles| Justia Law
Bush v. Gore: Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.| Justia Law
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC: A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.| Justia Law
Shelby County v. Holder: The Court suspended the operation of part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain state and local governments to get permission from the federal government before changing rules that affect the right to vote or the election process. However, this section will become active again if Congress updates the system for determining which governments fall into this category.| Justia Law
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey: A person retains the right to have an abortion, established by Roe v. Wade, but the state’s compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn child means that it can ban an abortion of a viable fetus under any circumstances except when the health of the mother is at risk. Also, laws restricting abortion should be evaluated under an undue burden standard rather than a strict scrutiny analysis.| Justia Law
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.| Justia Law
Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc.: The standard for deciding whether a work can gain copyright protection is its originality rather than its creator’s effort.| Justia Law
SEC v. Howey Co.| Justia Law
Miranda v. Arizona: Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.| Justia Law
Scott v. Sandford: In a decision that later was nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supreme Court held that former slaves did not have standing in federal courts because they lacked U.S. citizenship, even after they were freed.| Justia Law
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.| Justia Law
Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh: Land transfers from Native Americans to private individuals are void. When a tract of land has been acquired through conquest, and the property of most people who live there arise from the conquest, the people who have been conquered have a right to live on the land but cannot transfer title to the land.| Justia Law
Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.| Justia Law
