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.
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.
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. The dissent argued that the minimum drinking age condition for states to receive federal highway funds was not sufficiently related to Congress' interests in expending the funds and consequently exceeded Article 1,Section 8,spending power.
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.
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."
United States v. Ortiz,422 U.S. 891 (1975),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless,suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.
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 as the 16th chief justice of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2005,having previously been an associate justice from 1972 to 1986. 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.
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico,478 U.S. 328 (1986),was a 1986 appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether Puerto Rico's Games of Chance Act of 1948 is in legal compliance with the United States Constitution,specifically as regards freedom of speech,equal protection and due process. In a 5–4 decision,the Supreme Court held that the Puerto Rico government (law) could restrict advertisement for casino gambling from being targeted to residents,even if the activity itself was legal and advertisement to tourists was permitted. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Puerto Rico Supreme Court conclusion,as construed by the Puerto Rico Superior Court,that the Act and regulations do not facially violate the First Amendment,nor did it violate the due process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
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 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.
In the United States,a public defender is a lawyer appointed by the courts and provided by the state or federal governments to represent and advise those who cannot afford to hire a private attorney. Public defenders are full-time attorneys employed by the state or federal governments. The public defender program is one of several types of criminal legal aid in the United States.
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.
Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois,496 US 91 (1990),was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead,which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules,and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed,saying the letterhead was truthful,and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information.
Kimmelman v. Morrison,477 U.S. 365 (1986),was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case,evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally,violating the Fourth Amendment,but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his Fourth Amendment argument in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed,and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values,and had different requirements for prevailing in court,and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore,the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion,the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.
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.
- ↑ "Washington attorney Charles Cooper likely to get nod as U.S. solicitor general". SCOTUSblog. February 8, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- 1 2 Lat, David (January 15, 2017). "The Case For Chuck Cooper As Solicitor General" . Retrieved February 3, 2023.
- ↑ Id.
- 1 2 3 Love, Bruce (December 9, 2021). "How Cooper & Kirk Became One of the Most Influential Firms in Washington". National Law Journal. Retrieved July 19, 2024.
- ↑ "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.
- ↑ Lat, David (January 18, 2022). "A Leading Litigation Boutique Turns 25". by David Lat. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
- 1 2 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.
- ↑ "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.
