<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: 1973 Term Arguments</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <itunes:image>http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg</itunes:image>
  <itunes:category text="Government &amp; Organizations"/>
      <itunes:subtitle>U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</itunes:subtitle>
    
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Arnett v. Kennedy (No. 72-1118) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1973 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Wayne Kennedy was a nonprobationary employee of the federal Office of Economic Opportunity. He was dismissed from his position after allegedly making recklessly false and defamatory statements about other OEO employees. Though he had the right under federal regulations to reply to the charges, he chose instead to sue the agency for interfering with his freedom of expression and denying him due process. A three-judge District Court agreed with Kennedy on the due process claim.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Wayne Kennedy was a nonprobationary employee of the federal Office of Economic Opportunity. He was dismissed from his position after allegedly making recklessly false and defamatory statements about other OEO employees. Though he had the right under federal regulations to reply to the charges, he chose instead to sue the agency for interfering with his freedom of expression and denying him due process. A three-judge District Court agreed with Kennedy on the due process claim.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;May the federal government dismiss a nonprobationary employee without a trial-type preremoval hearing? Must the federal government provide sufficiently precise guidelines as to what kind of speech might be made the basis for a removal action?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>72-1118_19731107-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_1118/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_1118/argument/72-1118_19731107-argument.mp3" length="16068565" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>DeFunis v. Odegaard (No. 73-235) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 1974 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;DeFunis was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School despite test scores that were higher than some of the minorities admitted. DeFunis then successfully asked a trial court to require the school to admit him. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed, upholding the school's decision to deny DeFunis admission. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case as DeFunis was entering his final year of school.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;DeFunis was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School despite test scores that were higher than some of the minorities admitted. DeFunis then successfully asked a trial court to require the school to admit him. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed, upholding the school's decision to deny DeFunis admission. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case as DeFunis was entering his final year of school.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>73-235_19740226-mq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_235/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_235/argument/73-235_19740226-mq-argument.mp3" length="16877170" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (No. 72-617) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 1973 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Gertz was an attorney hired by a family to sue a police officer who had killed the family's son. In a magazine called American Opinion, the John Birch Society accused Gertz of being a "Leninist" and a "Communist-fronter" because he chose to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Gertz lost his libel suit because a lower court found that the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel which the Supreme Court had established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Gertz was an attorney hired by a family to sue a police officer who had killed the family's son. In a magazine called American Opinion, the John Birch Society accused Gertz of being a "Leninist" and a "Communist-fronter" because he chose to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Gertz lost his libel suit because a lower court found that the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel which the Supreme Court had established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does the First Amendment allow a newspaper or broadcaster to assert defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>72-617_19731114-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_617/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_617/argument/72-617_19731114-lq-argument.mp3" length="14127809" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Jenkins v. Georgia (No. 73-557) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1974 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;An Albany, Georgia theater manager was convicted under a Georgia obscenity law when he showed the critically acclaimed film "Carnal Knowledge." The film explored social conceptions of sexuality and starred Jack Nicholson and Ann Margaret.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;An Albany, Georgia theater manager was convicted under a Georgia obscenity law when he showed the critically acclaimed film "Carnal Knowledge." The film explored social conceptions of sexuality and starred Jack Nicholson and Ann Margaret.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did the manager's conviction violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>73-557_19740415-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_557/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_557/argument/73-557_19740415-lq-argument.mp3" length="13943078" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Milliken v. Bradley (No. 73-434) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 1974 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;A suit charging that the Detroit, Michigan public school system was racially segregated as a result of official policies was filed against Governor Milliken. After reviewing the case and concluding the system was segregated, a district court ordered the adoption of a desegregation plan that encompassed eighty-five outlying school districts. The lower court found that Detroit-only plans were inadequate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the metropolitan plan. This case was decided together with Allen Park Public Schools v. Bradley and Grosse Point Public School System v. Bradley.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;A suit charging that the Detroit, Michigan public school system was racially segregated as a result of official policies was filed against Governor Milliken. After reviewing the case and concluding the system was segregated, a district court ordered the adoption of a desegregation plan that encompassed eighty-five outlying school districts. The lower court found that Detroit-only plans were inadequate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the metropolitan plan. This case was decided together with Allen Park Public Schools v. Bradley and Grosse Point Public School System v. Bradley.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did federal courts have the authority to impose a multi-district desegregation plan on schools outside the Detroit area?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>73-434_19740227-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_434/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_434/argument/73-434_19740227-lq-argument.mp3" length="25623100" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Richardson v. Ramirez (No. 72-1589) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 1974 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>72-1589_19740115-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_1589/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_1589/argument/72-1589_19740115-argument.mp3" length="13434346" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>United States v. Richardson (No. 72-885) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 1973 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Richardson, a taxpayer interested in activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, sued the government to provide records detailing the CIA's expenditures.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Richardson, a taxpayer interested in activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, sued the government to provide records detailing the CIA's expenditures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does a federal taxpayer have standing to force the government to disclose expenditures of the CIA?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>72-885_19731010-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_885/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_885/argument/72-885_19731010-lq-argument.mp3" length="14900029" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>United States v. Robinson (No. 72-936) - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 1973 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;A police officer pulled over and arresting Robinson for operating an automobile without a valid permit. The officer then frisked Robinson and discovered a crumpled cigarette package containing fourteen vials of heroin in his pocket.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;A police officer pulled over and arresting Robinson for operating an automobile without a valid permit. The officer then frisked Robinson and discovered a crumpled cigarette package containing fourteen vials of heroin in his pocket.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did the officer's search violate the Fourth Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>72-936_19731009-lq-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_936/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_936/argument/72-936_19731009-lq-argument.mp3" length="14879085" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
 </channel>
</rss>
