Related Research Articles
Thoroughgood "Thurgood" Marshall was an American civil rights lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1967 until 1991. He was the Supreme Court's first African-American justice. Prior to his judicial service,he was an attorney who fought for civil rights,leading the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Marshall was a prominent figure in the movement to end racial segregation in American public schools. He won 29 of the 32 civil rights cases he argued before the Supreme Court,culminating in the Court's landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education,which rejected the separate but equal doctrine and held segregation in public education to be unconstitutional. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1967. A staunch liberal,he frequently dissented as the Court became increasingly conservative.
Gideon v. Wainwright,372 U.S. 335 (1963),was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel,which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government,by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.
Randy Evan Barnett is an American legal scholar. He serves as the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University,where he teaches constitutional law and contracts,and is the director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.
Tennessee v. Lane,541 U.S. 509 (2004),was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti,435 U.S. 765 (1978),is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.
Nix v. Whiteside,475 U.S. 157 (1986),was a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the effective assistance of counsel during a criminal trial.
Laird v. Tatum,408 U.S. 1 (1972),was a case in which the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of ripeness a claim in which the plaintiff accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen political activity." The appellant's specific nature of the harm caused by the surveillance was that it chilled the First Amendment rights of all citizens and undermined that right to express political dissent.
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections,383 U.S. 663 (1966),was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries,eleven southern states established poll taxes as part of their disenfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections;five states continued to require poll taxes for voters in state elections. By this ruling,the Supreme Court banned the use of poll taxes in state elections.
South Dakota v. Dole,483 U.S. 203 (1987),was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the limitations that the Constitution places on the authority of the United States Congress when Congress uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states. The Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld federal funds from states whose legal drinking age did not conform to federal policy.
Faretta v. California,422 U.S. 806 (1975),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest legal organization established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual and economic freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation,file amicus curiae briefs,and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights,equality before the law,freedom of speech and association,economic liberty,and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm,having been founded in 1973.
Cruz v. Beto,405 U.S. 319 (1972),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld a Free Exercise claim based on the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that offered other prisoners adhering to conventional religious precepts."
Keller v. State Bar of California,496 U.S. 1 (1990),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization’s political or ideological activities.
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American attorney and jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years. Rehnquist was an associate justice from 1972 to 1986 and the 16th chief justice from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a staunch conservative,Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism,the Court,for the first time since the 1930s,struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez,531 U.S. 533 (2001),is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC),a private,nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez,whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.
NAACP v. Button,371 U.S. 415 (1963),is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the reservation of jurisdiction by a federal district court did not bar the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a state court's ruling,and also overturned certain laws enacted by the state of Virginia in 1956 as part of the Stanley Plan and massive resistance,as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The statutes struck down by the Supreme Court had expanded the definitions of the traditional common law crimes of champerty and maintenance,as well as barratry,and had been targeted at the NAACP and its civil rights litigation.
Bounds v. Smith,430 U.S. 817 (1977),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance or counsel to inmates,whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library. Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC,518 U.S. 604 (1996),was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the committee were made independently from a specific candidate,they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA,and were protected under the First Amendment.
FEC v. National Conservative PAC,470 U.S. 480 (1985),was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA),which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.
Lafler v. Cooper,566 U.S. 156 (2012),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement,a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases,the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.
References
- ↑ Newton, David E. (2010). Same-Sex Marriage: A Reference Handbook: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 140. ISBN 9781598847086.
- ↑ "Charles J. Cooper". Archived from the original on October 29, 2019. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
- ↑ "The Supreme Court . About the Series . About the Experts | PBS".
- 1 2 Baker, Peter (October 26, 2019). "Waiting for Bolton: A Capital Speculates on What He Will Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ Polantz, Katelyn (June 20, 2017). "Chuck Cooper Confirms: He's AG Jeff Sessions' Lawyer". The National Law Journal . Retrieved June 20, 2017.
- ↑ "'Victory Or Death': The Conservative Legal 'Warrior' Defending Jeff Sessions". TPM – Talking Points Memo. March 8, 2018. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ Johnson, Eliana (January 4, 2017). "Litigator known for defending California's Prop. 8 helping prep Sessions for confirmation". POLITICO. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ Pincus, Walter and Morgan, Dan. "High-Level Iran Cover-Up Shown in Testimony, Documents", Washington Post, June 26, 1987.
- ↑ Pincus, Shelton and Engelberg, Stephen. "EIGHT IMPORTANT DAYS IN NOVEMBER: UNRAVELING THE IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR", New York Times,July 5, 1987.
- ↑ "Charles J. Cooper" . Retrieved January 5, 2024.
- ↑ "Meet Charles Cooper, the Lawyer Who Will Support Prop 8 in Arguments Today". ABA Journal. March 26, 2013. Retrieved March 26, 2013.
- ↑ "Award Winners". Republican National Lawyers Association.
- 1 2 Lat, David (January 15, 2017). "The Case For Chuck Cooper As Solicitor General" . Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ "Judge Victor J. Wolski (Chair) | US Court of Federal Claims".
- ↑ "BYU grad who defended California's Prop 8 confirmed as federal judge over Democrats' objections". Deseret News. May 22, 2019. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ "Sen. Cruz Praises Nomination of Noel Francisco as U.S. Solicitor General | U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas". March 10, 2017.
- ↑ "Washington attorney Charles Cooper likely to get nod as U.S. solicitor general". SCOTUSblog. February 8, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022). Retrieved February 11 2024.
- ↑ Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022), opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, pages 1-3 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf, Retrieved February 11 2024.
- ↑ Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022). Retrieved February 11 2024.
- ↑ "Argument analysis: Justices express skepticism over using legislative motive in pre-emption analysis". SCOTUSblog. November 6, 2018. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ "Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren". oyez.org. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
- 1 2 "Hollingsworth v. Perry". oyez.org. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
- ↑ "Clinton v. City of New York". oyez.org. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
- ↑ Calabresi, Steven G., “Separation of Power and the Rehnquist Court: The Centrality of Clinton v. City of New York”, 99 Northwestern University Law Review 77, 85 (2004-2005).
- ↑ "United States v. Winstar Corp". oyez.org. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
- ↑ "United States v. Winstar: The Government Takes a Hit". fedsoc.org. December 1996. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ "Federal Election Commission v. NRA Political Victory Fund". oyez.org. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
- ↑ "Lee v. Weisman". oyez.org. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
- ↑ Vile, John R. "Coercion Test". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
