What governing body oversaw both the Loving v. Virginia and United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. cases?
f37666d8b1df21b38069bab5e5014d5e
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
99244d2e32539558e42ab7d98bdd0300
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. The Supreme Court concluded not only that foreign affairs power was vested in the national government as a whole but also that the President of the United States had "plenary" powers in the foreign affairs field that were not dependent upon congressional delegation.
3064024629007b91caef1a75306783ca
Railroad Commission Cases The Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U.S. 307 (1886) , is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of states to set transportation charges of railroad companies. The Court held that the fixing of freight and passenger rates in railroad transportation was a permissible exercise of state police power.
ac6fb4a94e520244fa0dba98683d95c9
Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al., 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006), was a significant case in the development of free software. The case decided, at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that in United States law the GNU General Public License (GPL) did not contravene federal antitrust laws.
f7b878a9b0ac832733db07cc5e47c131
Civil Aeronautics Board The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was an agency of the federal government of the United States that regulated aviation services, including scheduled passenger airline service, and provided air accident investigation. The agency headquarters were in Washington, D.C.
b09ee26fa02bebf4b1eb3a7b421582d7
City of Richmond v. United States City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975), was a case that upheld Richmond, Virginia's annexation of land from surrounding counties.
33aca5b3c28929384fe192f3a9e6038d
Brown v. Maryland Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827), was a significant United States Supreme Court case which interpreted the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution to prohibit discriminatory taxation by states against imported items after importation, rather than only at the time of importation. The state of Maryland passed a law requiring importers of foreign goods to obtain a license for selling their products. Brown was charged under this law and appealed. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Import-Export Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, ruling that Maryland's statute violated the import-export and commerce clauses and the federal law was supreme. He alleged that the power of a state to tax goods did not apply if they remained in their "original package". A license tax on the importer was essentially the same as a tax on an import itself. Despite arguing the case for Maryland, future chief justice Roger Taney admitted that the case was correctly decided.
b6d4dcad13454e1bab2295b1030dbe8a
James Henry Wright James Henry Wright (c. August 13, 1838 January 17, 1905) was an American jurist and politician. Following his service in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War, Wright became an attorney in Missouri where he served as mayor of Carrollton and a member of the Missouri House of Representatives. Wright was appointed Chief Justice of the Arizona Territorial Supreme Court by President Grover Cleveland. He served for three years before being removed from the bench by President Benjamin Harrison.
7df77d27813eb4cf79096856e5bd6ba7
Robert McIlwaine Robert D. McIlwaine III (September 18, 1924 – February 21, 2015) was an American lawyer and public official. He is known for his defense of Virginia's policies of racial segregation in the civil rights cases in which he represented the state as a lawyer for the attorney general’s office, including "Loving v. Virginia".
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.
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.
cea71d54956e12a4107c21344fe02c53
Pujo Committee The Pujo Committee was a United States congressional subcommittee in 1912–1913 that was formed to investigate the so-called "money trust", a community of Wall Street bankers and financiers that exerted powerful control over the nation's finances. After a resolution introduced by congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. for a probe on Wall Street power, congressman Arsène Pujo of Louisiana was authorized to form a subcommittee of the House Committee on Banking and Currency. In 1913–1914, the findings inspired public support for ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment that authorized a federal income tax, passage of the Federal Reserve Act, and passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
239c43dfb704d2018780bba9f1f2c695
William Francis Rhea William Francis Rhea (April 20, 1858 – March 23, 1931) was a U.S. Representative from Virginia, a Virginia state court judge, and a member of the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
7e73bfe011cf192649e1ab0dcd5d0905
Hudson v. Craft Hudson v. Craft ( , 1949) is a United States court case defining how the court defines consent as a defense to an intentional harm.
387917823417937c4e4ccde1e440aee4
Federal judiciary of the United States The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die.
e544ce89ffb90ee56383d6e4dae4507a
Anti-miscegenation laws Anti-miscegenation laws or miscegenation laws were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967. After the Second World War, an increasing number of states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, in "Loving v. Virginia", the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany as part of the Nuremberg laws, and in South Africa as part of the system of Apartheid.
783facb0813f0386dcdeeaa1d53ff4f5
Humphrey's Executor v. United States Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt presidency, regarding the powers that a President of the United States has to remove certain executive officials of a "quasi-legislative," "quasi-judicial" administrative body created by Congress, for purely political reasons and without the consent of Congress.
df503de2a029c67695309d9569bd01e5
Court of Appeals of Virginia The Court of Appeals of Virginia, established January 1, 1985, is an eleven-judge body that hears appeals from decisions of Virginia's circuit courts and the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. The Court sits in panels of at least three judges, and sometimes hears cases en banc. Appeals from the Court of Appeals go to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
8e8dde030a0ee0331e7fb1fc51991fb4
Home Building &amp; Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Minnesota's suspension of creditors' remedies was not in violation of the United States Constitution. "Blaisdell" was decided during the depth of the Great Depression and has been criticized by modern conservative and libertarian commentators.
e284d35d06d2e6709c37a6aa0be3f98d
Virginia Journal of International Law The Virginia Journal of International Law (Bluebook abbreviation: "Va. J. Int'l L.") is a law review that was established in 1959 at the University of Virginia School of Law. It is among the world's most influential international law journals, and its pieces have been cited by the Supreme Court of the United States, multiple U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the International Court of Justice.
90daeabbebd8c31fb03e39500d117790
Pace v. Alabama Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional. This ruling was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964 in "McLaughlin v. Florida" and in 1967 in "Loving v. Virginia". "Pace v. Alabama" is possibly the first recorded interracial sex court case in America.
a113fb291ca5bf4fdcec6d11ab1ac00c
Hill v. Wallace Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the legality of the Futures Trading Act of 1921. The law, approved August 24, 1921, 42 Stat. 187 , c. 86 by the U.S. Congress attempted to institute Federal regulation of grain futures contract trading by imposing a prohibitive tax on futures contracts traded on any market other than those that met the statute's requirements and were regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The court found it was an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power of Congress. Congress responded to the Court's decision by passing the Grain Futures Act in September 1922 based on the Commerce Clause. The Grain Futures Act was held to be constitutional by the Court in "Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen" (1923)