Biddle v. Perovich

Last updated

Biddle v. Perovich
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued May 2, 1927
Decided May 31, 1927
Full case nameBiddle, Warden v. Perovich
Citations274 U.S. 480 ( more )
47 S. Ct. 664; 71 L. Ed. 1161; 1927 U.S. LEXIS 45; 52 A.L.R. 832
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.  · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland  · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford  · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinion
MajorityHolmes, joined by Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Sanford, Stone
Taft took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under his power "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" (Article II, Section 2), the President may commute a sentence of death to life imprisonment without the convict's consent. This was a modification of the result in Burdick v. United States , 236 U.S. 79, limited page 274 U.S. 486. Response to a certificate of questions from the circuit court of appeals, arising upon review of a judgment of the district court in habeas corpus discharging Perovich from the Leavenworth Penitentiary.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clear and present danger</span> Free speech doctrine in US constitutional law

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. Created by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to refine the bad tendency test, it was never fully adopted and both tests were ultimately replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. While the majority of the Supreme Court Justices voted to uphold the conviction, the ruling has become an important free speech precedent due a concurring opinion by Justice Louis Brandeis recommending new perspectives on criticism of the government by citizens. The ruling was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Francis Biddle</span> Lawyer, judge, and 58th US Attorney General

Francis Beverley Biddle was an American lawyer and judge who was the United States Attorney General during World War II. He also served as the primary American judge during Nuremberg trials following World War II and a United States circuit judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1902 to 1932

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. Holmes is one of the most widely cited and influential Supreme Court justices in American history, noted for his long tenure on the Court and for his pithy opinions—particularly those on civil liberties and American constitutional democracy—and deference to the decisions of elected legislatures. Holmes retired from the Court at the age of 90, an unbeaten record for oldest justice on the Supreme Court. He previously served as a Brevet Colonel in the American Civil War, in which he was wounded three times, as an associate justice and chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and as Weld Professor of Law at his alma mater, Harvard Law School. His positions, distinctive personality, and writing style made him a popular figure, especially with American progressives.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes about sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments.

"Imminent lawless action" is one of several legal standards American courts use to determine whether certain speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standard was first established in 1969 in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio.

<i>Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten</i> 1917 federal district court case in First Amendment law

Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that addressed advocacy of illegal activity under the First Amendment. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Hand’s ruling in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (1917).

Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on November 15, 1965, that persons believed to be members of the Communist Party of the United States of America could not be required to register as party members with the Subversive Activities Control Board because the information which party members were required to submit could form the basis of their prosecution for being party members, which is a crime, and therefore deprived them of their self-incrimination rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court for China</span>

The United States Court for China was a United States district court that had extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. citizens in China. It existed from 1906 to 1943 and had jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, with appeals taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held a requirement mandating a permit to speak on religious issues in public was unconstitutional. The case was argued on October 17, 1950, and decided on January 15, 1951, with an 8–1 decision. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion for the Court. Justice Black and Justice Frankfurter concurred in the result only. Justice Jackson dissented.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Noyes Slough</span> River in Alaska, United States

Noyes Slough is a secondary channel of the Chena River contained entirely within the city limits of Fairbanks, Alaska. It is approximately 7 miles (11 km) long and separates the Garden Island district of Fairbanks from the rest of the town. During the summer, the slough is used by canoeists and waterfowl. In the winter, the slough freezes and is used by cross-country skiers, snowshoers, and mushers. It forms part of the route for the annual Open North American Sled Dog Championship and the Iron Dog snowmobile race, each of which end in downtown Fairbanks.

Rancho Las Mariposas was a 44,387-acre (179.63 km2) Mexican land grant in Alta California, located in present-day Mariposa County, California.

Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1 (1823), is a 6-to-1 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the state of Virginia had properly entered into a compact with the United States federal government under Clause One of Article Four of the United States Constitution. This compact surrendered Virginia's claim to the area that eventually became the state of Kentucky, but imposed restrictions on Kentucky's ability to upset title to land sold or otherwise granted by the state of Virginia at the time of the compact. The Supreme Court held that legislation enacted by Kentucky that restricted these rights unconstitutionally infringed on Virginia's right to surrender the land in accordance with Article Four, Clause One.

Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court Case that was first argued May 3, 1926 and finally decided May 16, 1927.

Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action.

United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927), is a significant decision by the United States Supreme Court protecting prohibition laws. The Court held 1) the Coast Guard may seize, board, and search vessels beyond the U.S. territorial waters and the high seas 12 miles outward from the coast if probable cause exists to believe that the vessel and persons in it are violating U.S. revenue laws, and 2) the Coast Guard's use of searchlights to view contents of a vessel on the high seas does not constitute a search and thus does not warrant Fourth Amendment protections.

Federal pardons in the United States are granted only by the U.S. president, pursuant to their authority under the U.S. Constitution to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States". Pardons extend to all federal criminal offenses, except in cases of impeachment, and entail various forms of clemency, including commuting or postponing a sentence, remitting a fine or restitution, delaying the imposition of a punishment, and providing amnesty to an entire group or class of individuals. The pardon power extends to cases involving courts-martial against members of the United States military, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force.

United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case that allowed prosecution of criminals for income tax evasion notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wiley Rutledge Supreme Court nomination</span>

Wiley Rutledge was nominated to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 11, 1943, after the resignation of James F. Byrnes created a vacancy on the court. Per the Constitution of the United States, Rutledge's nomination was subject to the advice and consent of the United States Senate, which holds the determinant power to confirm or reject nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. After being favorably reported on by both a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the full Judiciary Committee, the nomination was confirmed by the full Senate through a voice vote on February 8, 1943.