Which supreme court case likened political spending to the first amendment, Buckley v. Valeo or Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency?
53fea86666396d77552f30f085814128
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.
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."
cb69f83ac483851d7537533c0dd9d61b
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950) , is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an "ex post facto" law or bill of attainder in violation of of the United States Constitution, and is not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.
74a9c5a883749ebdbe30b5a0e854accb
United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
1999468183d9a1fd219cbd137119cf90
Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 362 is a UK and European and international human rights case on political spending at elections. It held that the United Kingdom's ban on spending money on political advertising, under the Communications Act 2003 section 321(2), was fully compatible with freedom of expression under the ECHR article 10.
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.
5feeacbbb8c493e717ba05261fe98201
Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for regulating ozone and particulate matter was challenged by the American Trucking Association along with other private companies and the States of Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. The Supreme Court faced the issues of whether the statute had impermissibly delegated legislative power to the agency, and whether the Administrator of the EPA, Christine Todd Whitman, could consider the costs of implementation in setting national ambient air quality standards.
96e00ac5e1a8e58f3ce4bb2ab9234f94
Ravin v. State Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), was a 1975 decision by the Alaska Supreme Court that held the Alaska Constitution's right to privacy protects an adult's ability to use and possess a small amount of marijuana in the home for personal use. The Alaska Supreme Court thereby became the first—and only—state or federal court to announce a constitutional privacy right that protects some level of marijuana use and possession.
829cc57658ea8c5d0e1fd4171455f7da
Davenport v. Washington Education Ass'n Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.
3f121d61517a680c62abc1e6da80362a
Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.
a8257a026efdb8c3365030eaeeda012f
Garcetti v. Ceballos Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) , is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.
43716f18b866860f529348cc6550554b
Moneyocracy Moneyocracy is a 2012 documentary film about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ,which was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The film explores how the "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" decision has dramatically changed the U.S Campaign Finance Laws and lead to the most expensive Elections in the United States. The film describes the systemic corruption of the United States democracy and the consequences of that systemic corruption on the U.S democracy and the electorate.
9e096bc9104840e2f561eec0ae708040
Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–1 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private schools, from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at private elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools.
af0c314623042e2a55be3d6aebcd61f5
Hyde Amendment (1997) The Hyde Amendment (Pub.L. 105-119, § 617, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2519, codified as a note following 18 U.S.C. § 3006A) is a federal statute allowing federal courts to award attorneys' fees and court costs to criminal defendants "where the court finds that the position of the United States was 'vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.'" In such cases, the federal court may allow victims to recover some of the costs they incurred in fighting the government's investigation and prosecution by authorizing an award of attorneys' fees and court costs to a criminal defendant when the prosecution's evidence is so baseless as to be "frivolous." Compensation awarded under this statute would come out of the budget of the specific federal agency involved, typically the United States Attorney's Office.
5aa53f48765220007df3328c9465adda
Heffernan v. City of Paterson Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.
5a6381cad04d92f25cb1e7408edb6ab4
Dickinson v. Zurko Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.
632af477305002520b07ab61bc3ea8f0
United States v. Morrison United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) , is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
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.
f502d008cdc4966efd8204a339e7a758
United States v. Richardson United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited and reported to the public.
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".
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.