Which case dealt with the 4th Amendment, Schmerber v. California or Michigan v. EPA?
aa125c2e9f07a25705d1db763835c702
Schmerber v. California Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until "Schmerber", the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.
6d382a46e7e2be80e64f89aef8b91237
Michigan v. EPA Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation. Writing for a 5–4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the EPA must consider costs and that it interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it determined that it did not need to consider costs when it issued a "finding" that it was "necessary and appropriate" to regulate. Critics of the Environmental Protection Agency praised the Court's decision, while other commentators criticized Justice Scalia's decision to ignore health impacts in his opinion. Some commentators suggested that the decision may derail President Barack Obama's climate change agenda entirely.
0fd179a019db67c375a78019dd3ff2fe
Maureen Mahoney Maureen E. Mahoney (born August 28, 1954) is a former deputy solicitor general and "top appellate lawyer" at the law firm of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., who has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Notably, she argued on behalf of the University of Michigan and its affirmative action program in "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003), in which the Court decided in favor of Michigan by a 5–4 vote.
0d002ef614345de57eea2d7df6ccbcbb
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 4 List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 4
191903184c2b48b7d6215db8c4f78f4b
Torres v. Puerto Rico Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico.
f58fd5ccb5f67f01f94afcdcb6955472
Stanley v. Georgia Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) , was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
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.
0aeae5e7cff08b285d582e70c7cdfeab
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) , was a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes. Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was that to permit derivatives would encourage police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule.
7b07d87387cebccd488c194ded46eadc
Jacobson v. Massachusetts Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.
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:
6d0606751dc27fb18a5dda12d5f90e07
Michigan Solicitor General The Michigan Solicitor General or Solicitor General of Michigan is the top appellate lawyer for the State of Michigan. It is an appointed position in the Office of the Michigan Attorney General, with supervision over all of the office's major appellate cases and amici briefs. The majority of the matters that the Solicitor General handles are argued in the United States Supreme Court and the Michigan Supreme Court, although the Solicitor General is also responsible for Michigan's filings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Michigan's appellate courts, and other federal and state appellate courts. On November 21, 2013, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette named Aaron Lindstrom Michigan Solicitor General and B. Eric Restuccia Deputy Michigan Solicitor General.
ef5f0a556c921c94f3a393d8320b7aa6
Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Simkins v. Cone, 323 F.2d 959 (1963), was a federal case, reaching the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that "separate but equal" racial segregation in publicly funded hospitals was a violation of equal protection under the United States Constitution.
1a8c1123f573862400392d9fb0b21aca
California v. Ciraolo California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that warrantless aerial observation of a person's backyard did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
a1fb2e68ae342cdd72c340f842064cc2
Chandler v. Miller Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the Constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of a state statute requiring drug tests of all candidates for certain state offices. The case is notable as being the only one in recent years where the Supreme Court has upheld a challenge to a ballot access restriction from members of a third party, in this case the Libertarian Party of Georgia.
6e89cba9df4a0138ce3386bc09ccebcf
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, docket no. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal.), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
ee0546b4550d8817e94d31d469cf2703
Arizona v. California Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river as well.
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.
e70fd780a6396063ae46bfb5514674ca
United States v. Ortiz 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.
719d6e291025b439b9d53218c665f446
California v. Byers California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that providing personal information at the scene of an accident does not infringe on one's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
848c125c3392d1f31e24aa5010892aa5
Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) , was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
128a24212ae84e93f581621414db0d0b
Smith v. California Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. "Smith v. California" continued the Supreme Court precedent of ruling that questions of freedom of expression were protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. It also established that in order for one to be criminally liable for possession of obscene material, there must be proof of one’s knowledge of the material.
c2ddabe8ea1ee031edd84b11bd409594
Ewing v. California Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) , is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in "Harmelin v. Michigan", 501 U.S. 957 (1991) , the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in "Ewing" and the companion case "Lockyer v. Andrade," 538 U.S. 63 (2003) , the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.