In what year was the court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Special Division?
d9d3d3bc0a41cdab917ba5b6c497bfbf
Special Division The Special Division is a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 49 (1982 ed., Supp. V) (Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act). It consists of three circuit court judges or justices appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. One of the judges must be a judge of the DC Circuit, and no two of the judges may be named to the Special Division from a particular court. The judges are appointed for 2-year terms, with any vacancy being filled only for the remainder of the 2-year period. Its constitutionality was upheld in Morrison v. Olson.
695aa5467c666237a4c94769116b6e8f
Morrison v. Olson Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) , is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional.
1df22aa29924023ae1e0f19f19b2d3ae
Separate Car Act The Withdraw Car Act (Act 111) was a law passed by the Louisiana State Legislature in 1890 which required "equal, but separate" train car accommodations for Blacks and Whites. An unsuccessful challenge to this law culminated in an 1896 United States Supreme Court decision ("Plessy v. Ferguson"), which upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation.
da3c210a1b271d5e55ca5570cddb1910
Yakus v. United States Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld congressional power to fetter judicial review and to delegate broad and flexible law-making power to an administrative agency in this constitutional challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The wartime anti-inflation measure, intended to expedite price control enforcement, conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of Office of Price Administration (OPA) regulations made under the act. But judicial power to consider the constitutionality of such regulations was accepted. Congress specified that challenges to their validity be initially reviewed under stringent time limitations by the OPA and on appeal exclusively by a special Article III tribunal in the District of Columbia—the Emergency Court of Appeals—and thereafter by the Supreme Court.
f037e822419bbdcb99a3e64525cedf2d
Carroll v. United States Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless search of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been used to increase the scope of hog leg searches.
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.
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.
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.
14fe8db08a42acb5fa600c7e8927a459
Sheldon v. Sill Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts by limiting the subjects those courts may hear, even if those subjects fall within the federal judicial power defined by the United States Constitution.
a1116b3a4a1f45000dd2f21da42b8c3c
Downes v. Bidwell Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) , was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
1ad16954ea893e9664f5c2f2beba3b20
United States v. Carolene Products Co. United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case contains for its famous "Footnote Four" in which the Court established the system of heightened scrutiny for laws targeting "discrete and insular minorities," compared with the lower scrutiny applied for economic regulations, as in this case.
044290972510b5a0aaa6e5d6b59f0985
Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the resolution of overlapping federal and provincial laws under the doctrine of double aspect.
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.
635e0aa2ffc12c5a03b0570552220b95
Barrett v. United States Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.
93cee3a81dfa5141bfc5064b73f7b612
Gompers v. United States Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604 (1914), was a contempt of court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
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.
9224be6a3df01cfd64cac435afacbe3c
Waite Court The Waite Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1874 to 1888, when Morrison Waite served as the seventh Chief Justice of the United States. Waite succeeded Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Waite served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Melville Fuller was nominated and confirmed as Waite's successor. The Waite Court presided over the Gilded Age and the end of the Reconstruction Era. It also played an important role in the 1876 presidential election, as five of its members served on the Electoral Commission that was created to settle the contested election. During the Waite's tenure, the jurisdiction of the federal courts was expanded by the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, which gave federal courts full jurisdiction over federal questions.
3002a650da78bdb9c2e688bddb2d00ca
Hodel v. Irving Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a statute ordering the escheat of fractional interests in real property which had been bequeathed to members of the Oglala Sioux tribe was an unconstitutional taking which required just compensation.
972d7dbd917f755a625be43dfd87e6ed
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.
e309a8945bc8cb963fcc8838aad8f1a4
Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially-discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially-discriminatory purpose are valid, under 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.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.