Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, are cases from which organization?
f3507d48cc534d91182b9b8dd0c5ecd8
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
96b3a5c613887086e0e2cb6b01fbf362
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.
b41496dfb7e844e4e03f809a69def505
United States v. Harriss United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), was a U.S. Supreme Court case applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act.
817f216a3cd10efc6ee54fa539d53641
Alexander v. Sandoval Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) , was a US Supreme Court decision that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact.
ed2299682c71a61497db9f0c95ddcebb
Harlan Institute The Harlan Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is "to bring a stylized law school experience into the high school classroom to ensure that our next generation of leaders has a proper understanding of our most fundamental laws." The primary focus of the Harlan Institute is on the study of the Supreme Court of the United States and on constitutional law. The Institute's primary means of supplying legal education to a high school audience is through FantasySCOTUS, a program devoted to giving high schoolers a free way to predict "real cases that the students will read in the news." The Institute was co-founded by Josh Blackman and Yaakov Roth, and Blackman is currently President of its Board of Directors.
2978654c276daf14978b120ea54582ca
Lambert v. Yellowley Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
4be50154310aad6c7c5d0fb9488e5fde
Hodgson v. Bowerbank Hodgson and Thompson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. 303 (1809) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The invalidated portion conferred federal courts jurisdiction to try cases between aliens.
9fb30f31eb925df230545c42e5d04547
Boys v Chaplin Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 is a leading conflict of laws case decided by the House of Lords.
f502d008cdc4966efd8204a339e7a758
United States v. Richardson United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited and reported to the public.
11a10ef88f6cbf531728022a9467d7f8
Holt v. Hobbs Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ___ (2015), was an American legal case in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas prison policy which prohibited a Muslim prisoner from growing a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
3c7be180067abf3f7b6ee035513d4daa
John M. Woolsey John Munro Woolsey (January 3, 1877 – May 4, 1945) was a United States federal judge in New York City, known "for his brilliant and poignantly phrased decisions", including several important precedents in First Amendment jurisprudence.
1023f791842fc1e29e8d5148f39afd94
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562 (1949) was a United States Supreme Court case in which two out-of-state corporations objected to "ad valorem" taxes imposed upon accounts receivable derived from goods manufactured in Ohio, though these accounts were not used in conducting business in Ohio. The court ruled that the tax violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
6692cd457372f0d95a67aafeac8db7ae
Boddie v. Connecticut Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) , was a case before the United States Supreme Court.
cb69f83ac483851d7537533c0dd9d61b
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950) , is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an "ex post facto" law or bill of attainder in violation of of the United States Constitution, and is not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.
8dbf56d8cb383abe2cc9e0e808cb5c4f
Myers v. United States Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) , was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.
da3c210a1b271d5e55ca5570cddb1910
Yakus v. United States Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld congressional power to fetter judicial review and to delegate broad and flexible law-making power to an administrative agency in this constitutional challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The wartime anti-inflation measure, intended to expedite price control enforcement, conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of Office of Price Administration (OPA) regulations made under the act. But judicial power to consider the constitutionality of such regulations was accepted. Congress specified that challenges to their validity be initially reviewed under stringent time limitations by the OPA and on appeal exclusively by a special Article III tribunal in the District of Columbia—the Emergency Court of Appeals—and thereafter by the Supreme Court.
9bacc8b3a17af212c24ad18e75ffb5f1
Massachusetts v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The case was consolidated with "Frothingham v. Mellon". The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing:
f4231000daaa6c7d490c04fdc333d0b4
United States v. Mendenhall United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) , was a United States Supreme Court case.
07a0f49a281dd7024a3033979640d80b
Cohens v. Virginia Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) , was a United States Supreme Court decision most noted for the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters when the defendant claims that their Constitutional rights have been violated. The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving American parties.
93cee3a81dfa5141bfc5064b73f7b612
Gompers v. United States Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604 (1914), was a contempt of court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
e1e3104c07222b94e8586c4567337238
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.
2f16780fb69a515e038f5ced3b6f60ba
Paroline v. United States Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that to recover restitution under , the government or the victim must establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages. The decision vacated the appellate court decision, 701 F. 3d 749, and remanded it. A legislative fix was subsequently proposed by Marci Hamilton. Ultimately, the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act was introduced.