The Oyez Project: 1974 Term Decisions

Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. Scrap (No. 73-1966)

No details yet.

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (No. 74-389)

No details yet.

Alfred Dunhill Of London, Inc. v. Cuba (No. 73-1288)

No details yet.

Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman (No. 73-628)

No details yet.

Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society (No. 73-1977)

No details yet.

American Radio Assn. v. Mobile S. S. Assn. (No. 73-748)

No details yet.

Antoine v. Washington (No. 73-717)

No details yet.

Austin v. New Hampshire (No. 73-2060)

No details yet.

Beer v. United States (No. 73-1869)

No details yet.

Bigelow v. Virginia (No. 73-1309)

Did the Virginia law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution?

The Court held that the Virginia law infringed upon Bigelow's First Amendment rights and violated the Constitution. Citing prior holdings such as New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Justice Blackmun denied the Supreme Court of Virginia's ruling that commercial speech is not afforded First Amendment protection. Furthermore, the advertisement in question contained important information in the "public interest" which went beyond merely informing readers of a commercial service. Finally, the Court feared that the Virginia statute had the potential to "impair" national and interstate publications which might choose to carry similar advertisements.

Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores (No. 74-124)

No details yet.

Bowen v. United States (No. 73-6848)

No details yet.

Bowman Transp. v. Ark.-Best Freight System (No. 73-1055)

No details yet.

Breed v. Jones (No. 73-1995)

No details yet.

Brown v. Illinois (No. 73-6650)

No details yet.

Burns v. Alcala (No. 73-1708)

No details yet.

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co. (No. 73-5520)

No details yet.

Cassius v. Arizona (No. 74-5140)

No details yet.

Chapman v. Meier (No. 73-1406)

No details yet.

Chemehuevi Tribe Of Indians v. FPC (No. 73-1380)

No details yet.

City Of Richmond v. United States (No. 74-201)

No details yet.

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle (No. 73-1595)

No details yet.

Connell Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters (No. 73-1256)

No details yet.

Cort v. Ash (No. 73-1908)

No details yet.

Costarelli v. Massachusetts (No. 73-6739)

No details yet.

Cousins v. Wigoda (No. 73-1106)

No details yet.

Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn (No. 73-938)

Did the Georgia law violate the freedom of the press as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court held that the Georgia statute violated the Constitution. Justice White recognized the primacy of issues of privacy and press freedom, but he also identified compelling reasons why the press should not be restricted in this case. First, the news media is an important resource for citizens which allows them to scrutinize government proceedings. The commissions and adjudication of crimes are issues relevant to the public interest. Second, in the development of the privacy right, the Court has held that the interests of privacy "fade" in cases where controversial "information already appears on the public record." Restricting the media as the Georgia law did was a dangerous encroachment on press freedom, argued White, as it "would invite timidity and self-censorship."

Decoteau v. District County Court (No. 73-1148)

No details yet.

Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (No. 74-337)

No details yet.

Drope v. Missouri (No. 73-6038)

No details yet.

Dunlop v. Bachowski (No. 74-466)

No details yet.

Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund (No. 73-1923)

Did the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and not violate the First Amendment?

The Court held that the Senate Subcommittee's actions were legitimate and did not violate the Fund's First Amendment rights. Chief Justice Burger argued that the power to investigate, even through a compulsory mechanism like a subpoena, is "inherent in the power to make laws." Furthermore, the investigation was related to and aided in furthering a "legitimate task of Congress," namely, the investigation of the Internal Security Act. Burger disregarded the Fund's claim that the investigation was being conducted to expose its beliefs, many of which were "unorthodox or unpopular." He reasoned that the legitimacy of a congressional investigatory action is not derived from the motives of the members or by the information that the investigation uncovers.

Edwards v. Healy (No. 73-759)

No details yet.

Ellis v. Dyson (No. 73-130)

No details yet.

Emporium Capwell Co. v. Community Org. (No. 73-696)

No details yet.

Erznoznik v. City Of Jacksonville (No. 73-1942)

No details yet.

Faa Administrator v. Robertson (No. 74-450)

No details yet.

Faretta v. California (No. 73-5772)

No details yet.

Foster v. Dravo Corp. (No. 73-1773)

No details yet.

Francisco v. Gathright (No. 73-5768)

No details yet.

Fry v. United States (No. 73-822)

No details yet.

Fusari v. Steinberg (No. 73-848)

No details yet.

Garment Workers v. Quality Mfg. Co. (No. 73-765)

No details yet.

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (No. 74-70)

No details yet.

Gonzalez v. Employees Credit Union (No. 73-858)

No details yet.

Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange (No. 74-304)

No details yet.

Goss v. Lopez (No. 73-898)

Did the imposition of the suspensions without preliminary hearings violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens, it could not withdraw that right "on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct ha[d] occurred." The Court held that Ohio was constrained to recognize students' entitlements to education as property interests protected by the Due Process Clause that could not be taken away without minimum procedures required by the Clause. The Court found that students facing suspension should at a minimum be given notice and afforded some kind of hearing.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co. (No. 73-1012)

No details yet.

Gurley v. Rhoden (No. 73-1734)

No details yet.

Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong (No. 73-1596)

No details yet.

Harris County Comm'rs Court v. Moore (No. 73-1475)

No details yet.

Herring v. New York (No. 73-6587)

No details yet.

Hicks v. Miranda (No. 74-156)

No details yet.

Hill v. Printing Industries Of Gulf Coast (No. 74-456)

No details yet.

Hill v. Stone (No. 73-1723)

No details yet.

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (No. 73-296)

No details yet.

Iannelli v. United States (No. 73-64)

No details yet.

Icc v. Oregon Pacific Industries, Inc. (No. 73-1210)

No details yet.

Indianapolis School Comm'rs v. Jacobs (No. 73-1347)

No details yet.

Intercounty Construction Corp. v. Walter (No. 74-362)

No details yet.

Itt v. Electrical Workers (No. 73-1313)

No details yet.

Ivan Allen Co. v. United States (No. 74-22)

No details yet.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (No. 73-5845)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Mississippi (No. 73-1531)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Railway Express Agency (No. 73-1543)

No details yet.

Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co. (No. 73-1270)

No details yet.

Kugler v. Helfant (No. 74-80)

No details yet.

Laing v. United States (No. 73-1808)

No details yet.

Lascaris v. Shirley (No. 73-1016)

No details yet.

Lefkowitz v. Newsome (No. 73-1627)

No details yet.

Linden Lumber Division v. NLRB (No. 73-1231)

No details yet.

Maness v. Meyers (No. 73-689)

No details yet.

Mathews v. Diaz (No. 73-1046)

No details yet.

Mclucas v. Dechamplain (No. 73-1346)

No details yet.

Meek v. Pittenger (No. 73-1765)

No details yet.

Middendorf v. Henry (No. 74-175)

No details yet.

Mtm, Inc. v. Baxley (No. 73-1119)

No details yet.

Mullaney v. Wilbur (No. 74-13)

No details yet.

Muniz v. Hoffman (No. 73-1924)

No details yet.

Murphy v. Florida (No. 74-5116)

No details yet.

National League of Cities v. Usery (No. 74-878)

May Congress, acting under its commerce power, regulate the labor market of state employees, which the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states?

Congress may not regulate the labor market of state employees. The Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting legislation which operates "to directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions." While the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause is "plenary," that power has constitutional limits. In this case, the exercise of the commerce power ran afoul of the Tenth Amendment which protects the states' traditional activities.

NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (No. 73-1233)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc. (No. 73-1363)

No details yet.

North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. (No. 73-1121)

No details yet.

O'connor v. Donaldson (No. 74-8)

No details yet.

Oregon v. Hass (No. 73-1452)

No details yet.

Otte v. United States (No. 73-375)

No details yet.

Phelps v. United States (No. 74-121)

No details yet.

Philbrook v. Glodgett (No. 73-1820)

No details yet.

Preiser v. Newkirk (No. 74-107)

No details yet.

Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases (No. 74-165)

No details yet.

Reid v. Ins (No. 73-1541)

No details yet.

Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft (No. 73-1316)

No details yet.

Roe v. Doe (No. 73-1446)

No details yet.

Roe v. Norton (No. 73-6033)

No details yet.

Rogers v. United States (No. 73-6336)

No details yet.

Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp. (No. 74-415)

No details yet.

Saxbe v. Bustos (No. 73-300)

No details yet.

Schick v. Reed (No. 73-5677)

Did Eisenhower exceed his powers to commute criminal sentences?

The Court dismissed Schick's claim that Eisenhower's action was invalid because it imposed a condition not authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Tracing the development and Court's interpretation of the President's powers to commute sentences, Chief Justice Burger argued that since the pardoning power is an enumerated one, any limit on it must be found in the Constitution. Thus, its use does not depend on statutes such as those found in the military code.

Schlesinger v. Ballard (No. 73-776)

No details yet.

Schlesinger, v. Councilman (No. 73-662)

No details yet.

Securities Investor Protection v. Barbour (No. 73-2055)

No details yet.

Serfass v. United States (No. 73-1424)

No details yet.

Sosna v. Iowa (No. 73-762)

No details yet.

Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (No. 73-1004)

No details yet.

Standard Steel Co. v. Wash. Revenue Dept. (No. 73-1697)

No details yet.

Stanton v. Stanton (No. 73-1461)

No details yet.

Taylor v. Louisiana (No. 73-5744)

No details yet.

Test v. United States (No. 73-5993)

No details yet.

Train v. Campaign Clean Water (No. 73-1378)

No details yet.

Train v. City Of New York (No. 73-1377)

No details yet.

Train v. Natural Resources Def. Council (No. 73-1742)

No details yet.

Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken (No. 74-452)

No details yet.

U.S. v. American Bldg. Maint. Industries (No. 73-1689)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank (No. 73-1933)

No details yet.

U.S. v. National Assn. Securities Dealers (No. 73-1701)

No details yet.

United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman (No. 74-157)

No details yet.

United States v. Alaska (No. 73-1888)

No details yet.

United States v. Bisceglia (No. 73-1245)

No details yet.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (No. 74-114)

No details yet.

United States v. Feola (No. 73-1123)

No details yet.

United States v. Florida (No. 52 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Guana-Sanchez (No. 73-820)

No details yet.

United States v. Hale (No. 74-364)

No details yet.

United States v. Itt Continental Baking Co. (No. 73-1290)

No details yet.

United States v. Jenkins (No. 73-1513)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Maine (No. 35 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Mazurie (No. 73-1018)

No details yet.

United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm'n (No. 74-548)

No details yet.

United States v. N. J. State Lottery Comm'n (No. 73-1471)

No details yet.

United States v. Nixon (No. 73-1766)

Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.

United States v. Nobles (No. 74-634)

No details yet.

United States v. Ortiz (No. 73-2050)

No details yet.

United States v. Park (No. 74-215)

No details yet.

United States v. Peltier (No. 73-2000)

No details yet.

United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. (No. 74-363)

No details yet.

United States v. Wilson (No. 73-1162)

No details yet.

United States v. Wilson (No. 73-1395)

No details yet.

Utah v. United States (No. 31 ORIG)

No details yet.

Van Lare v. Hurley (No. 74-453)

No details yet.

Vella v. Ford Motor Co. (No. 73-1994)

No details yet.

Warth v. Seldin (No. 73-2024)

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Salfi (No. 74-214)

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (No. 73-1892)

No details yet.

White v. Regester (No. 73-1462)

No details yet.

Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States (No. 73-1279)

No details yet.

Withrow v. Larkin (No. 73-1573)

No details yet.

Wood v. Strickland (No. 73-1285)

No details yet.