In between Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and Buckley v. Valeo which was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law?
86ffffbeac982f4deaba9e283cd0010a
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law.
88b7f17ec5aeeac67eacffab21e5d468
Buckley v. Valeo Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976) is a US constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance. A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a "per curiam" (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken."
a9b81e463410da8ee459fa6a3fc823dc
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) , was a United States Supreme Court case that provided the first elaboration of the doctrine of "Constitutional avoidance".
a8f1f88153bf9a1181efe6683bc2bdd4
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. When it was first ratified, the Bill of Rights only protected the rights it enumerated from federal infringement, allowing states and local governments to abridge them. However, beginning in 1897 with "Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago", various portions have been held to be incorporated against state and local government through the Fourteenth Amendment.
1162ffcb5c4ad96642359900ea3fb09c
Van Staphorst v. Maryland Van Staphorst v. Maryland, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 401 (1791), was the first case docketed with the United States Supreme Court. Although the court agreed to hear and decide the case, the suit was settled before oral arguments. "Collet v. Collet" was the first appellate case docketed with the court. "West v. Barnes" was the first case decided by the court.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
257ab2832399f43fa2d7b464c36053f4
United States v. Williams (1951) United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 70 (1951) , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that provides that (protecting US citizens' Fourteenth Amendment rights from individuals sworn to uphold laws) may only be applied to federal cases and is not available to the state governments.
7161ae0bcf8b29e56d07a19bbd3dc4e3
Musacchio v. United States Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for appellate review when the government does not object to an erroneous jury instruction that adds elements to a criminal offense as well as whether a defendant may raise a statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that when reviewing a claim that the government failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offense, an appellate court should assess the elements of the alleged crime, rather than the elements that were described in jury instructions. Justice Thomas explained that "[a] reviewing court’s limited determination on sufficiency review ... does not rest on how the jury was instructed." Additionally, with respect to the statute of limitations issue, Justice Thomas held that a statute of limitations defense cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
8c473a516b0abab969fa3dd3691626cd
Parker v. Brown Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) , was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of US antitrust law. It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act.
955450ca78ba6b9f3c3bc971de5961c6
United States v. Lopez United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the second United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned possession of handguns near schools, was unconstitutional because it did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. After the "Lopez" decision, the act was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
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.
5a0aede65f027c8e1d1fd97731c5273b
Dice v. Akron, Canton &amp; Youngstown R. Co. Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal court rules apply when an action is brought pursuant to a federal right and where the substance of a state's rules would necessarily have an adverse effect on the protection of an individual's rights under federal law.
bf90f9a86c5c8842460aa34b3eeba39b
Lindsey v. Miller Lindsey v. Miller, 3 U.S. 411 (1799) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: "The fact that the land demanded in a suit was granted by and is claimed under a State, does not make the State a party to the suit, within the meaning of the second section of the third article of the constitution. Nor does an issue upon the point whether the land demanded is within the limits of the State.
37bacfe171c87d83d343dab6394c858a
Martin Mahoney Martin Vincent Mahoney (February 22, 1915 - August 22, 1969) was a Scott County, Minnesota justice of the peace who presided over the initial trial in the case of "First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly", Dec. 9, 1968 (Justice Court, Township of Credit River, Scott County, Minnesota), also known as the "Credit River" case. This case has been cited by various conspiracy theorists and anti-Federal Reserve System protesters as authority for the proposition that foreclosure is illegal. According to a statement published at the Minnesota State Law Library web site, the "Credit River" decision is not legal precedent, since it was undertaken by a justice of the peace (see also Subject-matter jurisdiction), and was eventually overruled by other court decisions. The defendant, Jerome Daly, was a longtime tax protester and attorney who was later disbarred by a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
fcf71775e9847c754cb7dd19d30b11a6
United States v. Comstock United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. The practice, introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.
90167b8a7ae77f6c45920aae2c8e29d0
Albertson v. Robeson Lessee of Albertson v. Robeson, 1 U.S. 9 (1764) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.
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.
6eb9d5ac25c7b96bc1cdee121c1e0355
James v. Dravo Contracting Co. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937) , is a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the United States federal government.
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.
c89380fac1a675bd8e212da7df2f12eb
Imbler v. Pachtman Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which district attorneys or prosecutors were found to have full immunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.
3fb2702aced372ec1ebb9c3d30b62ae3
Federal lands Federal lands are lands in the United States for which ownership is claimed by the U.S. federal government, pursuant to of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this section empowers Congress to retain federal lands, to regulate federal lands such as by limiting cattle grazing, and to sell such lands. As of March 2012, out of the 2.27 billion acres (918.6 million hectares) in the country, about 28% of the total was owned by the Federal government according to the Interior Department. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the broad powers of the federal government to deal with federal lands, for example having unanimously held in "Kleppe v. New Mexico" that "the complete power that Congress has over federal lands under this clause necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there, state law notwithstanding."