The Oyez Project: 1966 Term Decisions

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (No. 39)

No details yet.

Adderley v. Florida (No. 19)

Were the petitioners denied their rights of free speech, assembly, petition, due process of law and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court found that there were no constitutional violations in this case. The language of the Florida statute was clearly defined and applied, argued Justice Black, which prevented it from imposing broad infringements on speech and expression rights. Furthermore, since the sheriff acted to maintain access to the jail house and not because he "objected to what was being sung . . . or disagreed with the objectives of the protest," there were no First Amendment violations. Black concluded that the state does have the power to control its own property for lawful, nondiscriminatory purposes.

Afroyim v. Rusk (No. 456)

Does Section 401(e) of the 1940 Nationality Act, revoking U.S. citizenship to persons who vote in other countries' elections, violate either the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process or the Fourteenth Amendment, under which naturalized citizens are granted national citizenship?

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, overruling Perez v. Brownell (356 US 44), the Court held that Congress has no general power to revoke American citizenship without consent. Noting the special bond between Americans and their government, a bond that protects every citizen against all manner of destruction of their rights, the Court held that only citizens themselves may voluntarily relinquish their citizenship. This sacred principle applies equally to natural and naturalized citizens. As such, Section 401(e) violated both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

American Trucking v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co. (No. 57)

No details yet.

Anders v. State Of Cal. (No. 98)

No details yet.

B. & O. R. Co. v. United States (No. 642)

No details yet.

Bank Of Marin v. England (No. 63)

No details yet.

Berenyi v. Immigration Director (No. 66)

No details yet.

Berger v. New York (No. 615)

No details yet.

Bond v. Floyd (No. 87)

No details yet.

Bostick v. South Carolina (No. 647)

No details yet.

Boutilier v. Immigration Service (No. 440)

No details yet.

Camara v. Municipal Court (No. 92)

No details yet.

Canada Packers v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co. (No. 11)

No details yet.

Cascade Nat. Gas v. El Paso Nat. Gas (No. 4)

No details yet.

Chapman v. California (No. 95)

No details yet.

Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co. (No. 8)

No details yet.

Cichos v. Indiana (No. 45)

No details yet.

Clewis v. Texas (No. 648)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Estate Of Bosch (No. 673)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Stidger (No. 173)

No details yet.

Cooper v. California (No. 103)

No details yet.

Crown Coat Front Co. v. U.S. (No. 371)

No details yet.

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (No. 37)

No details yet.

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Trainmen (No. 794)

No details yet.

Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. U.S. (No. 305)

No details yet.

Dept. Of Employment v. U.S. (No. 78)

No details yet.

Dombrowski v. Eastland (No. 118)

No details yet.

Dusch v. Davis (No. 724)

No details yet.

Entsminger v. State Of Iowa (No. 252)

No details yet.

First Nat. Bank v. Walker Bank (No. 51)

No details yet.

Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. (No. 214)

No details yet.

Fortson v. Morris (No. 800)

No details yet.

FPC v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. (No. 127)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Jantzen, Inc. (No. 310)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Procter & Gamble Co. (No. 342)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Universal-Rundle Corp. (No. 101)

No details yet.

Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn. (No. 438)

No details yet.

Garrity v. New Jersey (No. 13)

No details yet.

Gilbert v. California (No. 223)

No details yet.

Giles v. Maryland (No. 27)

No details yet.

Grosso v. United States (No. 12)

No details yet.

Heider, Administrator v. Michigan Sugar Co. (No. 48)

No details yet.

Hoffa v. United States (No. 32)

No details yet.

Honda v. Clark (No. 164)

No details yet.

Houston Contractors Assn. v. NLRB (No. 206)

No details yet.

Illinois C. R. Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (No. 15)

No details yet.

Immigration Service v. Errico (No. 54)

No details yet.

In re Gault (No. 116)

Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self-incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements.

Jackson v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. (No. 575)

No details yet.

Keyishian v. Board Of Regents (No. 105)

No details yet.

Klopfer v. North Carolina (No. 100)

No details yet.

Lassen v. Arizona Highway Dept. (No. 84)

No details yet.

Levin v. Mississippi River Corp. (No. 352)

No details yet.

Lewis v. United States (No. 36)

No details yet.

Long v. District Court Of Iowa (No. 77)

No details yet.

Loving v. Virginia (No. 395)

Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Marchetti v. United States (No. 2)

No details yet.

Mccray v. Illinois (No. 159)

No details yet.

Miller v. Pate (No. 250)

No details yet.

Moody v. Flowers (No. 624)

No details yet.

National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department Of Revenue Of State Of (No. 241)

No details yet.

Neely v. Eby Construction Co. (No. 12)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co. (No. 52)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. (No. 216)

No details yet.

NLRB v. C & C Plywood Corp. (No. 53)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers (No. 781)

No details yet.

Northeastern Nat. Bank v. U.S. (No. 637)

No details yet.

Nowakowski v. Maroney (No. 222)

No details yet.

Osborn v. United States (No. 29)

No details yet.

Parker v. Gladden (No. 81)

No details yet.

Pierson v. Ray (No. 79)

No details yet.

Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin (No. 343)

No details yet.

Railroad Trans. Service v. Chicago (No. 209)

No details yet.

Redrup v. State Of N. Y. (No. 3)

No details yet.

Reitman v. Mulkey (No. 483)

No details yet.

Sailors v. Board Of Education (No. 430)

No details yet.

SEC v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co. (No. 428)

No details yet.

See v. City Of Seattle (No. 180)

No details yet.

Sims v. Georgia (No. 251)

No details yet.

Specht v. Patterson (No. 831)

No details yet.

Spencer v. Texas (No. 68)

No details yet.

Spevack v. Klein (No. 62)

No details yet.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire (No. 391)

No details yet.

Stovall v. Denno (No. 254)

No details yet.

Swann v. Adams (No. 136)

No details yet.

Switzerland Assn. v. Horne's Market (No. 42)

No details yet.

Thorpe v. Housing Authority (No. 712)

No details yet.

Toilet Goods Assn. v. Gardner (No. 336)

No details yet.

Transportation Union v. U. P. R. Co. (No. 28)

No details yet.

Travis v. United States (No. 67)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (No. 25)

No details yet.

Udall v. FPC (No. 463)

No details yet.

United Gas Pipe Line v. FPC (No. 49)

No details yet.

United States v. Acme Process Co. (No. 86)

No details yet.

United States v. Demko (No. 76)

No details yet.

United States v. Fabrizio (No. 47)

No details yet.

United States v. First City Nat. Bank (No. 914)

No details yet.

United States v. Laub (No. 176)

No details yet.

United States v. Robel (No. 8)

No details yet.

United States v. Sealy, Inc. (No. 9)

No details yet.

United States v. Wade (No. 334)

No details yet.

Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking (No. 18)

No details yet.

Vaca v. Sipes (No. 114)

No details yet.

Waldron v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc. (No. 233)

No details yet.

Walker v. Birmingham (No. 249)

Did the injunction violate the First Amendment?

The Court upheld the arrests since Walker failed to use proper judicial procedures to test the injunction's validity. Even though, Justice Stewart admitted, the injunction seemed broad and vague, and the marchers may not have enjoyed due process when applying for the permit originally, simply disobeying the injunction was illegitimate as "no man can be judge in his own case . . . however righteous his motives."

Walker v. Southern R. Co. (No. 89)

No details yet.

Warden v. Hayden (No. 480)

No details yet.

Washington v. Texas (No. 649)

No details yet.

Watkins v. Conway (No. 65)

No details yet.

Whitus v. Georgia (No. 650)

No details yet.

Woodby v. Immigration Service (No. 40)

No details yet.

Woodwork Manufacturers v. NLRB (No. 110)

No details yet.