The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
Emilio Miller Garza is a former United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Danny Julian Boggs is an American lawyer and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Choose Life license plates are specialty license plates available in 33 states in the United States that express an anti-abortion message. The plates are the concept of Choose Life,Inc.,an anti-abortion advocacy group based in Ocala,Florida. It was founded in 1997 by Randy Harris,a Marion County commissioner,after being inspired by an environmental license plate on the car in front of him to use specialty license plates as a way to raise funds for crisis pregnancy centers,which are nonprofit organizations established to counsel women against receiving abortions. The plates feature the phrase "Choose Life",a slogan used by the anti-abortion movement,and a Microsoft Paint style drawing of two children.
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union,535 U.S. 564 (2002),followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004),was a decision of the United States Supreme Court,ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
Milan Dale Smith,Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother,Gordon H. Smith,was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat,and he considers himself to be a political independent.
Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille,Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America,Appellees,is a tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated,or rendered void,by the Court on December 22,2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision,finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3,2007.
Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Thomas Beall Griffith is an American lawyer and jurist who served as a U.S. circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2020. Currently,he is a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School,a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University (BYU),and special counsel in the Washington,D.C. office of the law firm of Hunton Andrews Kurth. He is also a member of the Federalist Society.
Amul Roger Thapar is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He previously served as a U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky from 2008 to 2017 and as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky from 2006 to 2008. Thapar was President Donald Trump's first Court of Appeals appointment and Trump's second judicial appointment after Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thapar was discussed as a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States.
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.
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association,531 U.S. 288 (2001),is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether the actions of an interscholastic sport-association that regulated sports among Tennessee schools could be regarded as a state actor for First Amendment and Due Process purposes. The Court held that the sport-association can be sued as a state actor because its actions and history have been "entangled" with state action. While the Supreme Court would reconsider this same case in the future,this specific decision became important in articulating a new principle of what entities are bound by the First Amendment.
Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs,three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear,a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." On April 25,2014,that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit,which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.
Walker v. Texas Division,Sons of Confederate Veterans,576 U.S. 200 (2015),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert,576 U.S. 155 (2015),is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005,Gilbert,Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance,the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.
Matal v. Tam,582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons,institutions,beliefs,or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky,585 U.S. ___ (2018),was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of governmental speech restrictions in a polling place venue. The case challenged a century-old Minnesota law that prevents voters from wearing clothing or items considered political while voting. While the Supreme Court previously affirmed that political campaigning near polling places may be restricted,the Minnesota law was challenged on being overbroad and violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. The case's decision was issued on June 14,2018,with the Court finding 7–2 that the Minnesota law was overbroad of what could be considered "political" speech,violating free speech rights and deemed unconstitutional.
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 procedurally defaulted Fourth Amendment claim 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.
