Which was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, Rasul v. Bush or Gravel v. United States?
9ed6e7b1e639998670cc04f44fc4caa1
Rasul v. Bush Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) , was landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of "habeas corpus" to review the legality of their detention. The Court's 6–3 judgment on June 28, 2004, reversed a D.C. Circuit decision joined by Judge Merrick Garland, which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction to hear any petitions from foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.
eb89e3d19f7be018855016b74d599f8a
Gravel v. United States Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.
b7493f9860159f40d17512f6f160b848
Ball v. United States Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), is one of the earliest United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause.
14a9303b197ef401504c48eddca7950a
Louisiana v. United States (1965) Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965) , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with an "interpretation test" permitted by the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 alleged to deprive Louisiana Negroes of voting rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1971(a) and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
f5ebeccf7e0951dccd4e02fcf772be3f
Adderley v. Florida Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.
7bcd034548aa39cf3f3c54e157366a27
Gibbons v. Ogden Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.
43eadd8d2fe0b9b897f797a307346658
Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In "Scott", the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel.
7dec3a68aa0d1347f7c0fc96c613bd22
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case, which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property to prevent racial discrimination: "<nowiki>[</nowiki> /1982 § 1982  <nowiki>]</nowiki> bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment."
c4c1c6a7e252b51f3485a4ccddeb61b2
Galloway v. United States Galloway v. United States was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court determined that a directed verdict does not deprive litigants of their right to a trial by jury in civil cases under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
3b2822acc9ac84fcda95809b4c627abe
Censorship in the United States In general, censorship in the United States, which involves the suppression of speech or public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This freedom, though fundamental, has been accompanied with controversy since its enshrinement. For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to "Miller v. California" (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, legally be censored. While it is legal to express certain forms of hate speech so long as one does not engage in the acts being discussed, or urge others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups (such as the Ku Klux Klan) being denied certain marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, though the initially adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.
4b15720782502c44105a4d4d6e4b62ad
Dennis v. United States Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) , was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government.
5d4854b8a7215d6df007e3ec7fab9c5c
Goss v. Lopez Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) was a US Supreme Court case. It held that a public school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension. Also, a suspension without a hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
fccb777d8abc7cb0313c626b241566d2
Ludwig v. Massachusetts Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 U.S. 600 (1976) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Massachusetts two-tier court system did not deprive Ludwig of his U.S. Const., Amend. XIV right to a jury trial and did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Const., Amend. V.
8edd2a253eaac258e88b73bacd6c9b20
R v Lucas R v Lucas is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal offence of defamatory libel. The Court held that the "Criminal Code" offence of defamatory libel infringed the constitutional protection of freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", but the offence was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under Section 1 of the "Charter".
887af39f1f73cd11de24f9e51323d0fa
McCarran Amendment The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952) is a federal law enacted by the United States Congress in 1952 which waives the United States' sovereign immunity in suits concerning ownership or management of water rights. It amended Chapter 15 (Appropriation of Waters; Reservoir Sites) of Title 43 (Public Lands) of the United States Code. The McCarran Amendment gives others the right to join in such a lawsuit as a defendant. Prior to the Amendment, sovereign immunity kept the United States from being joined in any suits. The Amendment enabled suits concerning federal water rights to be tried in state courts.
c87f75c7f335cf7a1919f71b27e33bc5
Murdock v. Pennsylvania Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on religious exercise.
632af477305002520b07ab61bc3ea8f0
United States v. Morrison United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) , is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
c890e655a111f3cbfd25242bda502742
United States v. Rybar United States of America v. Raymond Rybar, Jr., 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), is a case which was argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on September 13, 1995, and decided on December 30, 1996. The appeal addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
29661aadd2af34bca25821dacc46b413
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).
db0c4fb7504c2045e775f4f3b6619256
Rostker v. Goldberg Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys, including Robert L. Goldberg, subsequently challenged the gender distinction as unconstitutional. (The named defendant is Bernard D. Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System.) In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed.
a75c3071a81000594d11d1cdd69d2d43
Reid v. Covert Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by U.S. military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury.
6df8af1113a6c784c3d32a2a0e5a5003
Utah v. Strieff Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.