The Oyez Project: 1976 Term Decisions

Abney v. United States (No. 75-6521)

No details yet.

Abood v. Detroit Board Of Education (No. 75-1153)

No details yet.

Alabama Power Co. v. Davis (No. 76-451)

No details yet.

Alexander v. Fioto (No. 75-1704)

No details yet.

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (No. 75-616)

Was Arlington Height's denial of a zoning request, necessary for the creation of low- and moderate-income housing, racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Perhaps. After finding that MHDC had proper federal standing, since it acted on behalf of black plaintiffs who stood to suffer direct and measurable injuries from Arlington's denial, the Court held that it failed to establish Arlington's racially discriminatory intent or purpose. While indicating that Arlington's zoning denial may result in a racially disproportionate impact, the evidence did not show that this was Arlington's deliberate intention. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further consideration.

Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety Comm'n (No. 75-746)

No details yet.

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (No. 76-316)

Did the Arizona rule, which restricted legal advertising, violate the freedom of speech of Bates and his firm as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court found that the rule violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Blackmun argued that commercial speech does merit First Amendment protection given the important functions it serves in society, such as providing consumers with information about services and products, and helping to allocate resources in the American system of free-enterprise. The Court held that allowing attorneys to advertise would not harm the legal profession or the administration of justice, and, in fact, would supply consumers with valuable information about the availability and cost of legal services.

Batterton v. Francis (No. 75-1181)

No details yet.

Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 75-1267)

No details yet.

Beal v. Doe (No. 75-554)

Did Title XIX of the Social Security Act require states that participate in the Medicaid program to fund the cost of nontherapeutic abortions?

No. The Court held that states could exclude nontherapeutic abortions from coverage under their Medicaid programs. Justice Powell argued that in its provisions, Title XIX of the Social Security Act made no specific reference to abortion nor did it require states to fund every medical procedure which could possibly fall under its umbrella. Powell made clear however that the federal statute did give states the option to fund therapeutic abortions if they chose to do so.

Belcher v. Stengel (No. 75-823)

No details yet.

Blackledge v. Allison (No. 75-1693)

No details yet.

Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n (No. 75-1019)

No details yet.

Bounds v. Smith (No. 75-915)

No details yet.

Brewer v. Williams (No. 74-1263)

No details yet.

Briscoe v. Bell (No. 76-60)

No details yet.

Brown v. Ohio (No. 75-6933)

No details yet.

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (No. 75-904)

No details yet.

Califano v. Goldfarb (No. 75-699)

No details yet.

Califano v. Sanders (No. 75-1443)

No details yet.

Califano v. Webster (No. 76-457)

No details yet.

Carey v. Population Services International (No. 75-443)

No details yet.

Castaneda v. Partida (No. 75-1552)

No details yet.

Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist. (No. 76-352)

No details yet.

Codd v. Velger (No. 75-812)

No details yet.

Coker v. Georgia (No. 75-5444)

Was the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of rape a form of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment?

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the death penalty was a "grossly disproportionate" punishment for the crime of rape. The Court noted that nearly all states at that time declined to impose such a harsh penalty, with Georgia being the only state that authorized death for the rape of an adult woman. Because rape did not involve the taking of another human life, the Court found the death penalty excessive "in its severity and revocability."

Commissioner v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (No. 75-1771)

No details yet.

Complete Auto Transit Inc. v. Brady (No. 76-29)

Did the Mississippi tax violate the Commerce Clause because it placed a burden on an activity associated with interstate commerce?

A unanimous Court found the tax valid. Businesses involved in interstate commerce should assume a just share of the state tax burden. The Court's decision established four criteria to be met for a state tax to be valid and not an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The tax must be (1) on an activity connected to the state, (2) fairly apportioned to be based on intrastate commerce, (3) nondiscriminatory, and (4) related to state services provided. These criteria are only valid if Congress has not imposed conflicting regulations.

Connor v. Finch (No. 76-777)

No details yet.

Continental T. V., Inc. v. Gte Sylvania Inc. (No. 76-15)

No details yet.

Cook v. Hudson (No. 75-503)

No details yet.

Craig v. Boren (No. 75-628)

Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications. The Court held that the statistics relied on by the state of Oklahoma were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety. Generalities about the drinking habits of aggregate groups did not suffice. The Court also found that the Twenty-first Amendment did not alter the application of the Equal Protection Clause in the case.

Darden v. Florida (No. 76-5382)

No details yet.

Dayton Board Of Education v. Brinkman (No. 76-539)

No details yet.

Delaware Tribal Business Comm. v. Weeks (No. 75-1301)

No details yet.

Dixon v. Love (No. 75-1513)

No details yet.

Dobbert v. Florida (No. 76-5306)

No details yet.

Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner (No. 75-1312)

No details yet.

Dothard v. Rawlinson (No. 76-422)

No details yet.

Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc. (No. 75-1255)

No details yet.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Collins (No. 75-1870)

No details yet.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train (No. 75-978)

No details yet.

East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez (No. 75-718)

No details yet.

Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (No. 75-1264)

No details yet.

Epa v. Brown (No. 75-909)

No details yet.

Estelle v. Gamble (No. 75-929)

No details yet.

Farmer v. Carpenters (No. 75-804)

No details yet.

Fiallo v. Bell (No. 75-6297)

No details yet.

G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States (No. 75-235)

No details yet.

Gardner v. Florida (No. 74-6593)

No details yet.

Guam v. Olsen (No. 76-439)

No details yet.

Hankerson v. North Carolina (No. 75-6568)

No details yet.

Hazelwood School District v. United States (No. 76-255)

No details yet.

Henderson v. Kibbe (No. 75-1906)

No details yet.

Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Ad. Comm. (No. 76-63)

Did the North Carolina regulation violate the Commerce Clause by placing an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce?

The Court voted unanimously that the North Carolina regulation was an unconstitutional exercise of the state's power over interstate commerce. Although the regulation was facially neutral, it had a discriminatory impact on the Washington growers while shielding the local growers from the same burden. The regulation removed the competitive advantage gained by the Washington apples from stricter inspection standards. The regulation produced a leveling effect that works to the local advantage by "downgrading" apples from other states unjustly. Therefore, the regulation places an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus v. Oregon (No. 67 ORIG)

No details yet.

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (No. 76-404)

No details yet.

Ingraham v. Wright (No. 75-6527)

No details yet.

Jeffers v. United States (No. 75-1805)

No details yet.

Jones v. Hildebrant (No. 76-5416)

No details yet.

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union (No. 75-1874)

No details yet.

Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (No. 75-1053)

No details yet.

Juidice v. Vail (No. 75-1397)

No details yet.

Knebel v. Hein (No. 75-1261)

No details yet.

Kremens v. Bartley (No. 75-1064)

No details yet.

Lee v. United States (No. 76-5187)

No details yet.

Lefkowitz v. Cunningham (No. 76-260)

No details yet.

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (No. 76-357)

No details yet.

Lockport v. Citizens For Community Action (No. 75-1157)

No details yet.

Madison Sch. Dist. v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n (No. 75-946)

No details yet.

Maher v. Roe (No. 75-1440)

Did the Connecticut law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Connecticut law placed no obstacles in the pregnant woman's path to an abortion, and that it did not "impinge upon the fundamental right recognized in Roe." The Court noted that there was a distinction between direct state interference with a protected activity and "state encouragement of alternative activity consonant with legislative policy." Holding that financial need alone did not identify a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court found that the law was "rationally related" to a legitimate state interest and survived scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mandel v. Bradley (No. 76-128)

No details yet.

Maness v. Wainwright (No. 75-6909)

No details yet.

Manson v. Brathwaite (No. 75-871)

No details yet.

Marks v. United States (No. 75-708)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. Westcott (No. 75-1775)

No details yet.

Mathews v. De Castro (No. 75-1197)

No details yet.

Milliken v. Bradley (No. 76-447)

No details yet.

Miree v. Dekalb County (No. 76-607)

No details yet.

Moody v. Daggett (No. 74-6632)

No details yet.

Moore v. East Cleveland (No. 75-6289)

Did the housing ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The four justices in the plurality held that the ordinance violated Moore's rights as it constituted "intrusive regulation of the family" without accruing some tangible state interest. Justice Stevens joined in the judgment and argued that the ordinance was invalid because, by regulating who could live with Moore, it constituted a taking of property without just compensation.

Morris v. Gressette (No. 75-1583)

No details yet.

Mt. Healthy City Board Of Ed. v. Doyle (No. 75-1278)

No details yet.

National Geographic v. Cal. Equalization Bd. (No. 75-1868)

No details yet.

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (No. 76-1786)

No details yet.

Nixon v. Administrator Of General Services (No. 75-1605)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Pipefitters (No. 75-777)

No details yet.

Nolde Bros., Inc. v. Bakery Workers (No. 75-1198)

No details yet.

Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo (No. 76-444)

No details yet.

Nyquist v. Mauclet (No. 76-208)

No details yet.

Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC (No. 76-99)

No details yet.

Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services v. Hodory (No. 75-1707)

No details yet.

Parker Seal Co. v. Cummins (No. 75-478)

No details yet.

Patterson v. New York (No. 75-1861)

No details yet.

Pearson v. Dodd (No. 75-1318)

No details yet.

Philadelphia v. New Jersey (No. 75-1150)

No details yet.

Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries (No. 75-353)

No details yet.

Poelker v. Doe (No. 75-442)

Did the policy violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. The Court held that St. Louis could enact a "policy choice" to refuse to provide publicly financed hospitals for nontherapeutic abortions even though it provided facilities for childbirth. Relying on its reasoning in Maher v. Roe (1977), the Court distinguished between a state interfering with a protected activity and simply encouraging an alternative activity. Since the state did not deny women the right to have an abortion, the law was consistent with the Constitution.

Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept. (No. 76-423)

No details yet.

Roberts v. Louisiana (No. 76-5206)

No details yet.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip (No. 75-562)

No details yet.

Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green (No. 75-1753)

No details yet.

Scarborough v. United States (No. 75-1344)

No details yet.

Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board (No. 74-6438)

No details yet.

Shaffer v. Heitner (No. 75-1812)

No details yet.

Smith v. Organization Of Foster Families (No. 76-180)

No details yet.

Smith v. United States (No. 75-1439)

No details yet.

Splawn v. California (No. 76-143)

No details yet.

State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. (No. 75-567)

No details yet.

Steelworkers v. Usery (No. 75-657)

No details yet.

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. U.S. (No. 76-321)

No details yet.

Swain v. Pressley (No. 75-811)

No details yet.

Teamsters v. United States (No. 75-636)

No details yet.

Third National Bank v. Impac Limited, Inc. (No. 76-674)

No details yet.

Trainor v. Hernandez (No. 75-1407)

No details yet.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (No. 75-1126)

No details yet.

Trimble v. Gordon (No. 75-5952)

Did Section 12 of the Illinois Probate Act violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Section 12 was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Applying the "rational relationship" test under the Clause, the Court emphasized that such a standard was not a "toothless" one. The Court then rejected the argument "that a State may attempt to influence the actions of men and women by imposing sanctions on the children born of their illegitimate relationships." The Court also noted that it was likely that Trimble would have inherited a substantial part of Gordon's estate had he written a will before his death.

Tully v. Griffin, Inc. (No. 75-831)

No details yet.

U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises (No. 75-853)

No details yet.

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans (No. 76-333)

No details yet.

United Airlines, Inc. v. Mcdonald (No. 76-545)

No details yet.

United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey (No. 75-104)

Did the reapportionment plan violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community?

The Court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution. Neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment prohibit per se use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. Also, a reapportionment plan does not violate the same Amendments by using numerical quotas to establish a certain number of black majority districts. Although New York deliberately increased nonwhite majorities in several districts, there was no "fencing out" of the white population in the county from electoral participation. The reapportionment did not underrepresent the whites relative to their share of the population. The Court found that New York could use apportionment plans to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted at the expense of the white populations.

United States Trust Co. of NY v. New Jersey (No. 75-1687)

In repealing the 1962 agreement, did the states violate the Contract Clause?

The repeal violated the Constitution. Justice Blackmun argued that the states could have implemented a less drastic solution to encourage people to use commuter train services in lieu of driving their cars. (State leaders thought the increase in bridge fares that would occur with the agreement's repeal would cause this to occur.) Furthermore, since the need to facilitate mass transportation in the New York metropolitan area had been a concern long before 1962, the states could not justify their action as a response to unforeseen circumstances.

United States v. Antelope (No. 75-661)

No details yet.

United States v. Chadwick (No. 75-1721)

No details yet.

United States v. Consumer Life Ins. Co. (No. 75-1221)

No details yet.

United States v. County Of Fresno (No. 75-1262)

No details yet.

United States v. Donovan (No. 75-212)

No details yet.

United States v. Florida (No. 54 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Larionoff (No. 76-413)

No details yet.

United States v. Lovasco (No. 75-1844)

No details yet.

United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. (No. 76-120)

No details yet.

United States v. Ramsey (No. 76-167)

No details yet.

United States v. Washington (No. 74-1106)

No details yet.

United States v. Wong (No. 74-635)

No details yet.

Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. (No. 76-156)

No details yet.

Vorchheimer v. School District Of Philadelphia (No. 76-37)

No details yet.

Wainwright v. Sykes (No. 75-1578)

No details yet.

Walsh v. Schlecht (No. 75-906)

No details yet.

Ward v. Illinois (No. 76-415)

No details yet.

Weatherford v. Bursey (No. 75-1510)

No details yet.

Whalen v. Roe (No. 75-839)

Did the reporting and record-keeping requirements violate the constitutional right to privacy embraced by the concept of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court held that the requirements of the Act did not on its face violate a "constitutionally protected 'zone of privacy.'" The Court found that the statutory scheme evidenced "a proper concern with, and protection of, the individual's interest in privacy" and that the "remote possibility" of potential abuses of data accumulation and disclosure were not sufficient to establish an invasion of any rights or liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wolman v. Walter (No. 76-496)

No details yet.

Wooley v. Maynard (No. 75-1453)

Did the New Hampshire law unconstitutionally interfere with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates. The Court found that the statute in question effectively required individuals to "use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message." The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech principles under the First Amendment, including "the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster. . .an idea they find morally objectionable."

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (No. 76-577)

Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments immunize the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. from damages for its alleged infringement of an entertainer's state-law right of publicity?

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Byron R. White, the Court held that Scripps-Howard's constitutionally privileged free speech did not extend to broadcasting Zacchini's entire performance without his permission. Noting that Zacchini's interest in the case was similar to a patent or copyright, in which he was seeking to obtain the benefit of his work, the Court emphasized that the broadcast of an entire act was categorically different from reporting on an event in so far as it posed a substantial threat to the economic value of the performance. "Wherever the line in particular situations is to be drawn between media reports that are protected and those that are not, we are quite sure that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the media when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent," wrote Justice White. Justice Louis F. Powell, Jr., joined by Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall, dissented, arguing that the recording was genuinely treated as news and as such Scripps-Howard was constitutionally privileged. Justice John Paul Stevens also dissented.