Did Afroyim v. Rusk or O'Connor v. Donaldson take place first?
0731b5cdd8f1f794dc85af068de3fe98
Afroyim v. Rusk Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) , is a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, "Perez v. Brownell" (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
fe7e2aa64f9e4773ce43fa5f80748eee
O'Connor v. Donaldson O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty.
b84c14897e4c060ad41e56b35377e0a1
Brown v. Texas Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.
851495078e15303203be98755b7874af
McGowan v. Maryland McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose.
81eddb7c1e15c871a2c7448dbdebcf71
United States v. Butler United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end" that violated the Tenth Amendment.
336cf7011abb1ab7bc87405e5929eb5c
Roberts v. City of Boston Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198 (1850), was a court case seeking to end racial discrimination in Boston public schools. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Boston, finding no constitutional basis for the suit. The case was later cited by the US Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson", which established the "separate but equal" standard.
8198559a8eaedf6380ee99648125d1ac
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. Inc., 346 U.S. 100 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court case which began on April 30, 1953 over the validity of the local Washington Acts of 1872 and 1873. The Acts prohibited segregation in public places within the District. With the court’s support, the legal ramifications of the 1872 and 1873 Acts could once again be enforced. The case transpired during growing racial tension in the nation’s capital. Throughout Washington, the black community had grown tired of unfair treatment regarding housing, businesses, and education. But, change came soon enough through the courts. On June 8, 1953, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the segregating policies practiced by Thompson’s Cafeteria were illegal, marking a huge victory for the national black community.
5987c8e24fa2453c39ab482281769de8
William H. Lewis William Henry Lewis (November 28, 1868 – January 1, 1949) was an African-American pioneer in athletics, law and politics. Born in Virginia as the son of freedmen, he went to college in Massachusetts, where he became one of the first African-American college football players, and the first in the sport to be selected as an All-American. In 1903 Lewis was the first African American to be appointed as an Assistant United States Attorney; in 1910 he was the first to be appointed as one of the five United States Assistant Attorneys General, despite opposition by the Southern Democratic block; and in 1911 he was the among the first African Americans to be admitted to the American Bar Association.
b4e4718fd9760457b2e9119db0940018
United States v. Rogers United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. 567 (1846), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a white man, adopted into an Indian tribe, does not become exempt from the enforcement of the laws prohibiting murder.
b2918114985f0bc93b965f32f43c41bd
Bob Jones University v. Simon Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974) , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African-Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in "Bob Jones University v. United States", 461 U.S. 574 (1983) , in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status.
ea6861e8ba56aaa757b0ca8125af8eef
Oregon v. Ice Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.
49c22a529cb257c876d2af923c030466
Ake v. Oklahoma Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required the state to provide a psychiatric evaluation to be used on behalf of an indigent criminal defendant if he needed it.
0e81a440b40f59371f075db733e2bf0d
Adkins v. Children's Hospital Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923) , is a United States Supreme Court opinion that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
da72162692a7539ec523b842719bc241
Louis Berry Louis Berry (October 9, 1914 – May 3, 1998) was the first African American permitted to practice law in his native formerly segregated city of Alexandria in Rapides Parish in Central Louisiana.
c98fa78e0b08ee84d9b29a6b09c979fd
Sullivan v. Zebley Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits. In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial parts of the Supplemental Security Income program's regulation on determining disability for children were inconsistent with the Social Security Act; particularly, the statutory standard of “comparable severity.” The suit highlighted what some felt was the need for a step in the evaluation of childhood disability claims that would be akin to the "functional" evaluation considered in many adult claims. It resulted in the addition of a consideration of functioning, and not merely medical severity, in children's SSI claims. The decision was rendered on February 20, 1990.
2913565fdb5050c3c69743db37645184
R v Patel R v Patel is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on May 8, 1959. The appellant's attorneys were Levy, Rogaly & Cohen, Pretoria, and S. and v A Rosendorff, Bloemfontein. The Appellate Division ruled that "a person has the same right to use force in the defence of another from a threatened danger, as he would have to defend himself, if he were the person threatened."
a3bf8b9f4605595e3b09ecd3272c893f
Enforcement Act of 1870 The Enforcement Act of 1870, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1870 or First Ku Klux Klan Act, or Force Act was a United States federal law written to empower the President with the legal authority to enforce the first section of the Fifteenth Amendment throughout the United States. The act was the first of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks on the suffrage rights of African Americans from state officials or violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
2a14423ba2f325296c454d08f4dd0cd5
Aucamp v Morton Aucamp v Morton is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Watermeyer CJ, Centlivres JA, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA and Fagan AJA on 7 and 8 June 1949, with judgment on 21 June.
f969fa5013caa536530992102d8e607d
R v Carto R v Carto is an important case in South African law, heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division on March 12, 1917, with judgment handed down on March 17. Graham JP (who wrote the judgment) and Sampson J were the presiding officers. It is significant for its contribution to the principle of legality, with its stipulation that "to render any act criminal in our law, there must be some punishment affixed to the commission of the act," and that "where no law exists affixing such punishment there is no crime in law."
278937bc5c3a9ccac72417db5507dc8e
R v Mills R v Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court upheld the newly enacted rape shield law when challenged as a violation to section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rape shield law was the second of its type, the first having been struck down in "R. v. Seaboyer". Accordingly, this case is often cited as an example of judicial dialogue.
6b604eeb7b70a6084b630690f271b02a
Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case "hasten[ing] the end of federal court desegregation orders." The Court held that a federal desegregation order should be ended even though it meant that schools would become re-segregated since the Oklahoma schools had been arranged into a unitary system.
c88e4363a341e48679bb3cf692d48392
R. v. Smith There are a number of court cases by the name of "R. v. Smith":