Cases - 1972 term

Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board

Mon, 04 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5656

Petitioner

Philpott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Essex County Welfare Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 413 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Philpott, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Mcginnis v. Royster

Mon, 11 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-718

Appellee

Royster

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mcginnis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 263 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mcginnis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Ward v. Village Of Monroeville

Tue, 17 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-496

Petitioner

Ward

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Village Of Monroeville

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 57 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, November 14, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ward, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Chicago, B. &. Q. R. Co.

Mon, 26 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-90

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chicago, B. &. Q. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 401 (1973)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. NLRB

Mon, 26 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1417

Petitioner

Machinists & Aerospace Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 84 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Cady v. Dombrowski

Wed, 21 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-586

Petitioner

Cady

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dombrowski

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 433 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cady, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Scrap

Wed, 28 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-535

Appellee

Scrap

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-562

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 669 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

Gagnon v. Scarpelli

Tue, 09 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1225

Petitioner

Gagnon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scarpelli

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 778 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gagnon, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Heller v. New York

Tue, 14 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1043

Petitioner

Heller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 483 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Heller, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Illinois v. Somerville

Mon, 13 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-692

Petitioner

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Somerville

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 458 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Mason

Wed, 18 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-654

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mason

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-606

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 391 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Morris v. Weinberger

Wed, 17 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6698

Petitioner

Morris

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weinberger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 422 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Weinberger, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Neil v. Biggers

Wed, 18 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-586

Petitioner

Neil

Respondent

Biggers

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 188 (1972)

Argued

October 18-19, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Neil, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Swenson v. Stidham

Wed, 11 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-224

Petitioner

Swenson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stidham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 224 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1972

Decided

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Swenson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Gaffney v. Cummings

Mon, 26 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1476

Petitioner

Cummings

Respondent

Gaffney

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 735 (1973)

Argued

February 26-27, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Gaffney, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Tonasket v. Washington

Tue, 12 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1031

Petitioner

Washington

Respondent

Tonasket

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 451 (1973)

Argued

December 12-13, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Advocates

Robert L. Pirtle (for the appellant)

Slade Gorton (Attorney General of Washington, for the appellees)

Alvin J. Ziontz ( for Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation et al. as amici curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tonasket, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Russell

Tue, 27 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1585

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Russell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 423 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Advocates

Thomas H. S. Brucker (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Philip A. Lacovara (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

At the conclusion of an undercover drug investigation, Richard Russell was arrested by Washington police and eventually convicted in a district court for drug manufacturing crimes. Russell challenged his conviction as the result of unconstitutional entrapment practices, since an undercover agent supplied him with an essential ingredient of his drug manufacturing operation. On appeal from an adverse Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court granted the government certiorari.

Question

Does an undercover law enforcement officer's participation in criminal conduct constitute entrapment in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process protections?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Not always. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that law enforcement officers may participate in the procedural commission of certain crimes such as drug manufacturing, so long as they do not implant criminal designs in the minds of the accused. In Russell's case, the investigated drug operations were in place long before undercover agents infiltrated them. Moreover, the ingredients contributed by the agents could have been acquired independently by Russell and his co-conspirators. As such, none of the agents' participatory activities amounted to entrapment.

Fri v. Sierra Club

Wed, 18 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-804

Petitioner

Fri

Respondent

Sierra Club

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 541 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Sierra Club, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Richmond School Board v. Board Of Educ.

Mon, 23 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-549

Petitioner

Richmond School Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board Of Educ.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Bradley v. State Board of Education of Virginia, No. 72-550

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 92 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Board Of Educ., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. First Nat. Bancorporation

Mon, 16 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-703

Petitioner

First Nat. Bancorporation

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 577 (1973)

Argued

October 16-17, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for First Nat. Bancorporation, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Indiana Employment Division v. Burney

Thu, 07 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1119

Appellee

Burney

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Indiana Employment Division

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 540 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Indiana Employment Division, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Almota Farmers Elevator & Whse. Co. v. U.S.

Wed, 18 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-951

Petitioner

Almota Farmers Elevator & Whse. Co.

Respondent

U.S.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 470 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 18, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Almota Farmers Elevator & Whse. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic Comm.

Mon, 16 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-863

Petitioner

Columbia Broadcasting

Respondent

Democratic Comm.

Consolidation

No. 71-864

No. 71-865

No. 71-866

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 94 (1973)

Argued

Monday, October 16, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Columbia Broadcasting, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Mahan v. Howell

Tue, 12 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-364

Petitioner

Howell

Respondent

Mahan

Consolidation

No. 71-373

No. 71-444

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 315 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Advocates

Andrew P. Miller (Argued the cause for the appellants in No. 71-364)

Henry E. Howell, Jr. (Pro se, argued the cause for appellees Howell et al. in both cases)

Harry Frazier, III (Argued the cause for the appellant in No. 71-373)

Clive L. DuVal, II (Pro se, argued the cause in both cases)

Facts of the Case

In 1971, the Virginia legislature reapportioned itself. The plan for the House of Representatives provided for 100 representatives from 52 districts with each House member representing an average of 46,485 constituents(with a variance between largest and smallest being 16.4 percent, compared to the ideal 3.89 percent). Henry Howell challenged the plan as unconstitutional because its population deviations were too large to satisfy the principle of "one person, one vote." This case was decided together with City of Virginia Beach v. Howell and Weinberg v. Prichard.

Question

Was the Virginia reapportionment plan invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mahan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

The Court found that the plan was constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause as described in Reynolds v. Sims. The Virginia plan is not to be judged by the more stringent congressional standards in Section 2 of Article I. The Equal Protection Clause requires a state to make an "honest and good faith effort" to construct districts of as nearly equal population as practicable. Some deviations from the equal population principle are valid if based on legitimate considerations of a "rational state policy." The Virginia plan advanced the policy of reapportionment without sacrificing substantial equality.

Colgrove v. Battin

Wed, 17 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1442

Petitioner

Colgrove

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Battin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 149 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Battin, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Committee For Public Education v. Nyquist

Mon, 16 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New York State Capitol

24 Eagle Street Albany NY 12207

Albany, NY 12207

United States

42° 39' 9.684" N, 73° 45' 27.1764" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-694

Petitioner

Committee For Public Education

Respondent

Ewald B. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York

Consolidation

No. 72-753, Anderson v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty

No. 72-791, Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty

No. 72-929, Cherry v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 756 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Advocates

Leo Pfeffer (argued the cause for appellants in No. 72-694 and for appellees in Nos. 72-753, 72-791, and 72-929)

Jean M. Coon (Assistant Solicitor General of New York, argued the cause for Nyquist et al., appellees in No. 72-694 and appellants in No. 72-791)

Porter R. Chandler (argued the cause for appellants in No. 72-929 and for appellees Boylan et al. in No. 72-694)

John F. Haggerty (argued the cause for appellant in No. 72-753)

Facts of the Case

New York enacted Chapter 414 of its Education and Tax Laws, which created aid programs for nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. These amendments included Section 1, which provided a grant for the maintenance and repair of schools that served many low-income students; Section 2, which provided tuition reimbursement for low-income parents; and Sections 3, 4, and 5, which provided tax relief for parents who did not qualify for tuition reimbursement. After the institution of these amendments, the Campaign for Public Education and Religious Liberty challenged the amendments in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that these amendments violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court held that Sections 1 and 2 violated the Establishment Clause, but not Sections 3, 4, and 5.

Question

Did Sections 1-5 of Chapter 414 of New York's Education and Tax Laws violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Committee For Public Education, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Yes to all sections. In a 6-3 decision, the Court affirmed the District Court on maintenance grant and tuition reimbursement and reversed the District Court on income tax relief. The Court cited earlier decisions that established that under the Establishment Clause, a law must "first, reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion." Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. acknowledged that New York's interest in creating a positive educational environment was a clearly secular purpose. Section 1, however, did not limit the use of the grants towards maintaining facilities used for secular purposes. This distinguished Section 1 from other aid programs approved by the Court in the past in Board of Education v. Allen and Tilton v. Richardson. Since "all or practically all" of the schools that qualified were affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, the maintenance grants would "subsidize and advance the religious mission of sectarian schools" in violation of the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist concurred in this part of the judgment. The Court also struck down Section 2, as the tuition reimbursements did not "guarantee the separation between secular and religious educational functions." While the Court recognized the possibility that reimbursement money would not end up in the hands of religious schools, the grants would attempt to "enhance the opportunities of the poor to choose between public and nonpublic education," which would advance religion. Lastly, the Court reversed the District Court with regard to Sections 3, 4, and 5, ruling that effect of tax relief was similar to that of the tuition reimbursement and therefore unconstitutional. The Court in Walz v. Tax Commission upheld New York's property tax exemptions for religious organizations. However, the tax exemption was designed to prevent government oppression of religion through taxation, not for the promotion of religion.

City Of Kenosha v. Bruno

Wed, 18 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-658

Appellee

Bruno

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Of Kenosha

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 507 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Kenosha, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Moor v. County Of Alameda

Tue, 27 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-10

Petitioner

Moor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

County Of Alameda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 693 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Moor, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Sloan v. Lemon

Mon, 16 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-459

Appellee

Lemon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Sloan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-620

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 825 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lemon, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec District

Mon, 08 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1069

Appellee

Toltec District

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Associated Enterprises, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Toltec District, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Bronston v. United States

Wed, 15 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1011

Petitioner

Bronston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 352 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, November 15, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bronston, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1621

None

Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Corp.

Tue, 05 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1059

Petitioner

Kern County Land Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Occidental Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 582 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Occidental Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

NLRB v. Textile Workers

Mon, 13 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-711

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Textile Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 213 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1972

Decided

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

O'brien v. Brown

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:47:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-34

Petitioner

O'brien

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-35

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 1 (1972)

Decided

Friday, July 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.

Mon, 15 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-685

Petitioner

Lehnhausen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-691

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 356 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1973

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lehnhausen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Keeble v. United States

Tue, 27 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5323

Petitioner

Keeble

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 205 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Keeble, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1153

None

United States v. Enmons

Mon, 04 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1193

Appellee

Enmons

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 396 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Enmons, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1951

None

United States v. Jim

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:47:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1509

Appellee

Jim

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 71-1612

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 80 (1972)

Decided

Monday, November 20, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Logue v. United States

Tue, 24 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-656

Petitioner

Logue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 521 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Logue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Cupp v. Murphy

Tue, 20 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-212

Petitioner

Cupp

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Murphy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 291 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Cupp, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning

Tue, 17 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-394

Petitioner

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hynson, Westcott & Dunning

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-414

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 609 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. Of Trade

Wed, 28 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-214

Appellee

Wichita Bd. Of Trade

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 72-433

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 800 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Chambers v. Mississippi

Wed, 15 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5908

Petitioner

Chambers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 284 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, November 15, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Chambers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Hall v. Cole

Wed, 21 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-630

Petitioner

Hall

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cole

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 1 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cole, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

None

Usv Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Weinberger

Tue, 17 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-666

Petitioner

Usv Pharmaceutical Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weinberger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 655 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Weinberger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Levitt v. Committee For Public Education

Mon, 19 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-269

Petitioner

Committee For Public Education

Respondent

Levitt

Consolidation

No. 72-270

No. 72-271

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 472 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Committee For Public Education, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Union Oil Co. v. The San Jacinto

Tue, 17 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-900

Petitioner

Union Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

The San Jacinto

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 140 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Union Oil Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 192

None

Gosa v. Mayden

Mon, 04 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6314

Petitioner

Gosa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mayden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-1398

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 665 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mayden, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States

Wed, 11 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-366

Petitioner

Tidewater Oil Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 151 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

Georgia v. United States

Wed, 21 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-75

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Georgia

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 526 (1973)

Argued

February 21-22, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

District Of Columbia v. Carter

Mon, 06 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-564

Petitioner

District Of Columbia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carter

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 418 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for District Of Columbia, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Gibson v. Berryhill

Tue, 09 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-653

Petitioner

Berryhill

Respondent

Gibson

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 564 (1973)

Argued

January 9-10, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gibson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2283

None

California v. Krivda

Tue, 10 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-651

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Krivda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 33 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, October 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:47:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6258

Petitioner

New Jersey Welfare Rights Org.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cahill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 619 (1973)

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Jersey Welfare Rights Org., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange

Wed, 18 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-858

Petitioner

Ricci

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 289 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 18, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 1

None

Doe v. Mcmillan

Wed, 13 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6356

Petitioner

Doe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcmillan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 306 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 13, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Doe, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

None

Couch v. United States

Tue, 14 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-889

Petitioner

Couch

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 322 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1973

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Ortwein v. Schwab

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:47:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5431

Appellee

Schwab

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ortwein

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 656 (1973)

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Schwab, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Chaffin v. Stynchcombe

Thu, 22 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6732

Petitioner

Chaffin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stynchcombe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 17 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Stynchcombe, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

Csc v. Letter Carriers

Mon, 26 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-634

Appellee

Letter Carriers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Csc

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 548 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Csc, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

In Re Griffiths

Tue, 09 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1336

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

In Re Griffiths

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 717 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for In Re Griffiths, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm'n Co.

Tue, 27 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1545

Petitioner

Butz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Glover Livestock Comm'n Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 182 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, March 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Butz, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Strunk v. United States

Tue, 24 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5521

Petitioner

Strunk

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 434 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Strunk, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Speedy Trial

None

Evco v. Jones

Wed, 08 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-857

Petitioner

Evco

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jones

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 91 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1972

Decided

Monday, December 4, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Evco, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

San Antonio Independent School Dis. v. Rodriguez

Thu, 12 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

San Antonio Independent School District

141 Lavaca San Antonio TX 78210

San Antonio, TX 78210

United States

29° 25' 3.81" N, 98° 29' 13.3728" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1332

Appellee

Rodriguez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

San Antonio Independent School Dis.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 1 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Advocates

Arthur Gochman (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Charles Alan Wright (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In addition to being funded through a state-funded program designed to establish a minimum educational threshold in every school, Texas public elementary and secondary schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental revenue. The San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD), acting on behalf of students whose families reside in poor districts, challenged this funding scheme by arguing that it underprivileged such students because their schools lacked the vast property tax base that other districts utilized. The reliance on assessable property, SAISD claimed, caused severe inter-district disparities in per-pupil expenditures.

Question

Did Texas' public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for San Antonio Independent School Dis., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No. The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas' system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not "so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory." Justice Powell argued that on the question of wealth and education, "the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages."

Ohio v. Kentucky

Wed, 10 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

27 ORIG

Plaintiff

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 641 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kentucky, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton

Thu, 19 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Paris Adult Theater

"320 Peachtree Street**** N.E." Atlanta GA 30308

Atlanta, GA 30308

United States

33° 45' 49.302" N, 84° 23' 11.4684" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1051

Petitioner

Paris Adult Theatre

Respondent

Slaton

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 49 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 19, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Advocates

Thomas E. Moran (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Robert Eugene Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

State officials in Georgia sought to enjoin the showing of allegedly obscene films at the Paris Adult Theatre. The Theatre clearly warned potential viewers of the sexual nature of the films and required that patrons be at least 21 years of age. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the films were "hard core" pornography unprotected by the Constitution.

Question

Did the Georgia injunction against the films violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Paris Adult Theatre, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene films did not acquire constitutional protection simply because they were exhibited for consenting adults only. Conduct involving consenting adults, the Court argued, was not always beyond the scope of governmental regulation. The Court found that there were "legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity," including the community's quality of life and public safety. The Court also noted that conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene materials was not necessary to justify the Georgia law.

The Court remanded the case to the Georgia Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider its decision in light of the obscenity standard spelled out in Miller v. California. The Georgia Supreme Court found that the works in question were obscene and directed the trial judge to issue an order permanently enjoining the theatre from exhibiting the films.

United States v. Pennsylvania Chem. Corp.

Tue, 27 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-624

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania Chem. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 655 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 401

None

Brown v. United States

Thu, 07 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6193

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 223 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

FPC v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division

Tue, 27 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-486

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 72-488

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 458 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FPC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 167

None

NLRB v. Boeing Co.

Mon, 26 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1607

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boeing Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 67 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for NLRB, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States

Mon, 19 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6278

Petitioner

Almeida-Sanchez

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 266 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1973, Wednesday, March 28, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Almeida-Sanchez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Brown v. Chote

Thu, 22 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1583

Petitioner

Chote

Respondent

Brown

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 452 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

White v. Weiser

Mon, 26 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1623

Appellee

Weiser

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

White

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 783 (1973)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for White, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

None

Tollett v. Henderson

Tue, 20 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-95

Petitioner

Tollett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Henderson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 258 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Tollett, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Fmc v. Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Wed, 21 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1647

Petitioner

Fmc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 726 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Seatrain Lines, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 46 U.S.C. 814

None

Frontiero v. Richardson

Wed, 17 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Frontiero's Residence

559 South Court Street Montgomery AL 36104

Montgomery, AL 36104

United States

32° 22' 12.0864" N, 86° 18' 31.554" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1694

Petitioner

Richardson

Respondent

Frontiero

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Advocates

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Samuel Huntington (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent's allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. Frontiero's request for dependent status for her husband was turned down.

Question

Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Frontiero, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded "dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated," violating the Due Process Clause. Applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification, the Court found that the government's interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices. The Court held that statutes that drew lines between the sexes on those grounds alone necessarily involved "the 'very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution.'"

Keyes v. School District No. 1

Thu, 12 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Board of Education, School District No. 1 Denver, CO

United States

39° 44' 20.9544" N, 104° 59' 4.9308" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-507

Petitioner

Keyes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

School District No. 1

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 189 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Advocates

William K. Ris (Argued the cause for the respondents)

James M. Nabrit, III (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Gordon G. Greiner (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Petitioners proved that for nearly ten years since 1960 the Denver, Colorado school system implemented an unconstitutional policy of racial discrimination by operating a segregated school system. The defense argued, and the District Court held, that even though one part of the Denver system was guilty of segregation, it did not follow that the entire system was segregated as well.

Question

Did the segregation in Denver involve all of the city's schools and violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Keyes, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

The Court modified and remanded the lower court decision and held that when part of a school system is found to be segregated, a "prima facie case of unlawful [systematic] segregative design" becomes apparent. The school district involved assumes the burden of proving that it operated without "segregative intent" on a system-wide basis. This case is significant because it represents one of the first instances in which the Court identified segregation in northern schools.

Preiser v. Rodriguez

Tue, 09 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1369

Petitioner

Preiser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rodriguez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 475 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Preiser, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Erlenbaugh v. United States

Mon, 13 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-839

Petitioner

Erlenbaugh

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 239 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, December 12, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1952

None

Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc.

Thu, 09 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-829

Petitioner

Mourning

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Family Publications Service, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 356 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, November 9, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mourning, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Truth in Lending

None

United States v. Florida East Coast R. Co.

Thu, 07 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-279

Appellee

Florida East Coast R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 224 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Brennan v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc.

Tue, 16 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1598

Petitioner

Brennan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arnheim & Neely, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 512 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Brennan, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

United States v. Basye

Mon, 11 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1022

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Basye

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 441 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

Tue, 07 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-708

Petitioner

Trafficante

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Metropolitan Life Ins.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 205 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1972

Decided

Thursday, December 7, 1972

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Trafficante, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Housing

None

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission

Tue, 12 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Navajo Reservation Apache County, AZ

United States

35° 31' 52.7592" N, 109° 22' 41.9556" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-834

Appellee

Rosalind McClanahan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Arizona State Tax Commission

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 164 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1973

Advocates

Richard B. Collins (argued the cause for the appellant)

Harry R. Sachse (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

James D. Winter (Assistant Attorney General of Arizona, argued the cause for appellee)

Facts of the Case

Rosalind McClanahan was a member of the Navajo Indian nation who lived on the Navajo Reservation in Apache County, Arizona. Her employer withheld $16.20 in 1967 for Arizona state income taxes. McClanahan sought the return of her withheld income. She claimed that since she was a Navajo Indian residing on the reservation and since her income was derived completely on the reservation, she was exempt from state taxation. When her request was denied, she filed suit in Apache County Superior Court. The Superior Court dismissed her claim. The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of Arizona rejected her petition for review.

Question

Did the State of Arizona have a right to tax Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation if their income is entirely from reservation sources?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mcclanahan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

No. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals and held that Arizona did not have the right to tax McClanahan. In an opinion authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court emphasized the long-standing status of Indian reservations as exempt from state authority. While the Navajo Treaty signed between the Navajo nation and the United States did not explicitly exempt the nation from state laws, Arizona entered the Union on the explicit condition that it would lose its authority over Indian tribes and reservations within the state, including taxation powers. Consistent with its decision in Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, the Court ruled that Arizona "had no jurisdiction to impose" state income tax on McLanahan.

Mcdonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

Wed, 28 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-490

Petitioner

Mcdonnell Douglas Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Green

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 792 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mcdonnell Douglas Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Gomez v. Perez

Wed, 06 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-575

Appellee

Perez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Gomez

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gomez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Hurtado v. United States

Wed, 17 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6742

Petitioner

Hurtado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 578 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Hurtado, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1821

None

Barnes v. United States

Tue, 20 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5443

Petitioner

Barnes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 837 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Kaplan v. California

Thu, 19 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1422

Petitioner

Kaplan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 115 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 19, 1972

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kaplan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Ash

Wed, 10 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1255

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 300 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Ham v. South Carolina

Mon, 06 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5139

Petitioner

Ham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 524 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ham, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Rosario v. Rockefeller

Wed, 13 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1371

Petitioner

Rosario

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rockefeller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 752 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 13, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rockefeller, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Gilligan v. Morgan

Mon, 19 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1553

Petitioner

Gilligan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morgan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 1 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gilligan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Tacon v. Arizona

Tue, 09 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6060

Petitioner

Tacon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 351 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Arizona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

United States v. Cartwright

Tue, 16 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1665

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cartwright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 546 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cartwright, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Gulf States Utilities Co. v. FPC

Tue, 05 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1178

Petitioner

Gulf States Utilities Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Power Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 747 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for FPC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

United States v. Dionisio

Mon, 06 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-229

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dionisio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 1 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Fontaine v. United States

Wed, 28 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6757

Petitioner

Fontaine

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 213 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Fontaine, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

United States v. Mara

Mon, 06 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-850

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mara

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 19 (1973)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Davis v. United States

Tue, 20 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6481

Petitioner

Davis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 233 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Linda R. S. v. Richard D.

Wed, 06 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6078

Appellee

Richard D.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Linda R. S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 614 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Richard D., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Epa v. Mink

Thu, 09 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-909

Petitioner

Epa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mink

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 73 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, November 9, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Epa, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Tue, 17 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-555

Petitioner

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 645 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Weinberger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

White v. Regester

Mon, 26 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-147

Appellee

Regester

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

White

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 755 (1973)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for White, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Tue, 10 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-732

Petitioner

Schneckloth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bustamonte

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 218 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Schneckloth, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

NAACP v. New York

Tue, 27 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-129

Petitioner

New York

Respondent

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 345 (1973)

Argued

February 27-28, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

New York Dept. Of Social Services v. Dublino

Tue, 17 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-792

Petitioner

Dublino

Respondent

New York Dept. Of Social Services

Consolidation

No. 72-802

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 405 (1973)

Argued

April 17-18, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New York Dept. Of Social Services, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Mon, 23 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Location

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave SW Washington DC 20250

Washington, DC 20250

United States

38° 53' 15.2484" N, 77° 1' 41.4552" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-534

Appellee

U.S. Department of Agriculture et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jacinta Moreno et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 528 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Advocates

A. Raymond Randolph, Jr. (argued the cause for the appellants)

Ronald F. Pollack (argued the cause for appellees)

Facts of the Case

Jacinta Moreno lived with Ermina Sanchez, who was not related, and Sanchez's three children. Sanchez provided care to Moreno, who contributed to household living expenses. Moreno satisfied the income requirements for the federal food stamp program, but was denied under Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, amended in 1971, which prohibited households with unrelated members from receiving food stamp benefits. Sanchez's food stamp benefits were also to be terminated. Moreno and other households who were denied benefits under Section 3 challenged the statute in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court held that Section 3 violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States appealed.

Question

Does Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Moreno, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2012

Yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Court upheld the District Court and maintained that amended Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment in creating two types of households – one in which all members were related and one in which at least one member was unrelated. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., writing for the majority, acknowledged the interest of Congress in preventing abuse of the Food Stamp program. However, the statute did not fulfill Congress' stated purpose of preventing "hippies" and "hippie communes" from enrolling the food stamp program. Additionally, there existed other measures within the Food Stamp Act that were specifically aimed at preventing abuse of the program. Since the statute "simply does not operate so as rationally to further the prevention of fraud," the distinction between households with related members and households with unrelated members did not further the state interest and therefore violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas authored a concurring opinion.

Wardius v. Oregon

Wed, 10 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6042

Petitioner

Wardius

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 470 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Wardius, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Roaden v. Kentucky

Tue, 14 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1134

Petitioner

Roaden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 496 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Roaden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Vlandis v. Kline

Tue, 20 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-493

Appellee

Kline

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vlandis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 441 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kline, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States

Tue, 05 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-991

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Otter Tail Power Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 366 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Alexander v. Virginia

Thu, 19 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1315

Petitioner

Alexander

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 836 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 19, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Alexander, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co.

Mon, 15 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1459

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Little Lake Misere Land Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 580 (1973)

Argued

January 15-16, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Michigan v. Payne

Thu, 22 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1005

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Payne

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 47 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Texas v. Louisiana

Mon, 11 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

36 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 702 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Texas, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

United States v. Bishop

Tue, 16 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1698

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bishop

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 346 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

United States v. Nevada

Mon, 16 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

59 ORIG

Plaintiff

United States

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Nevada

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 534 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Nevada, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mattz v. Arnett

Tue, 27 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1182

Petitioner

Mattz

Respondent

Arnett

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 481 (1973)

Argued

March 27-28, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mattz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 27 Stat. 52

None

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones

Tue, 12 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-738

Petitioner

Mescalero Apache Tribe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jones

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 145 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 12, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mescalero Apache Tribe, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 25 U.S.C. 465

None

Ciba Corp. v. Weinberger

Tue, 17 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-528

Petitioner

Ciba Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weinberger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 640 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Weinberger, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, and related statutes

None

Hensley v. Municipal Court

Mon, 15 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1428

Petitioner

Hensley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Municipal Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 345 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hensley, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Johnson v. New York State Education Dept.

Wed, 08 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5685

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York State Education Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 75 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1972

Decided

Monday, November 20, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Johnson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm'n

Mon, 19 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-350

Appellee

Mississippi Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 363 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 21: Twenty-First Amendment

None

Heublein, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n

Mon, 13 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-879

Appellee

South Carolina Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Heublein, Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 275 (1972)

Argued

Monday, November 13, 1972

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 381

None

Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept.

Mon, 15 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1021

Petitioner

Employees

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri Public Health Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 279 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Missouri Public Health Dept., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Palmore v. United States

Wed, 21 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-11

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Palmore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 389 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17: Governance of the District of Columbia and Lands Purchased from the States

None

U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture v. Murry

Mon, 23 Apr 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-848

Appellee

Murry

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 508 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Murry, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2012

None

United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.

Thu, 09 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-666

Appellee

Glaxo Group Ltd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 52 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, November 9, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Gottschalk v. Benson

Mon, 16 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-485

Petitioner

Gottschalk

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Benson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 63 (1972)

Argued

Monday, October 16, 1972

Decided

Monday, November 20, 1972

Advocates

Hugh B. Cox ()

Richard B. Stone ()

Facts of the Case

Engineers Gary Benson and Arthur Tabbot invented a faster and more efficient mathematical procedure for transforming the normal "decimal" type of numbers (base 10) into true "binary" numbers (base 2) which are simpler to process within computers. Their mathematical procedure was somewhat akin to long division, albeit with different steps. Their attorney argued before the patent examiner that the inventors were entitled to a broad patent covering any use of their new mathematical procedure, even use of it by a human using pencil and paper. The examiner rejected their invention. An appellate court overruled the examiner and ordered a patent to issue. The Commissioner of Patents then petitioned successfully to have the Supreme Court review this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the inventors' attorney backed down from his earlier position and argued that the inventors were entitled to a patent covering all uses of their new mathematical procedure in computers, but not necessarily to its use by humans using pencil and paper. (The members of the Supreme Court at that time knew very little about computers.)

Question

Is a computer program patentable? More specifically, is a mathematical procedure such as long division patentable?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Gottschalk, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 100

No and no. The Supreme Court held that a patent cannot cover all possible uses of a mathematical procedure or equation within a computer. That would be tantamount to granting the inventor a patent on the mathematical procedure itself, and this was no more acceptable than granting Samuel Morse a patent covering all possible uses of magnetism to communicate, rather than a narrower patent covering only the specific way in which Morse actually used magnetism to communicate in his telegraph. The court then said that "[i]f these programs are to be patentable, considerable problems are raised which only committees of Congress can manage ...." This decision was accepted as a final determination that computer programs were not patentable, and the Patent Office immediately ceased examining all computer program inventions. Very few patent applications directed to computer programs were filed until after the Supreme Court readdressed this issue in Diamond v. Diehr some nine years later. During these nine years, alternative ways of protecting computer programs were developed under the laws of copyright and trade secret which remain part of our law today.

Hunt v. Mcnair

Wed, 21 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1523

Appellee

Mcnair

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Hunt

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 734 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mcnair, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc.

Tue, 14 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1082

Appellee

American Waterways Operators, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Askew

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 325 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, November 14, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Askew, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 1161

None

United States v. Fuller

Wed, 18 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-559

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fuller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 488 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 18, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Bradley v. United States

Mon, 08 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1304

Petitioner

Bradley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 605 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 171

None

Sugarman v. Dougall

Mon, 08 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Location

New York City Human Resources Administration

1 Centre Street New York NY 10007

New York, NY 10007

United States

40° 42' 46.6164" N, 74° 0' 13.0176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1222

Appellee

Jule M. Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Patrick McL. Dougall et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 634 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Advocates

Samuel A. Hirshowitz (First Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for the appellants)

Lester Evens (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

Patrick Dougall was a federally registered resident alien. He was employed by a nonprofit organization that was absorbed into the Manpower Career and Development Agency (MCDA) of New York City's Human Resources Administration. He was ineligible for employment by the city under Section 53 of the New York Civil Service Law because he was a noncitizen. He was terminated for this reason alone. Dougall and other noncitizens who were terminated under Section 53 challenged the statute in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which held the statute unconstitutional. New York appealed the decision.

Question

Did Section 53 of the New York Civil Service Law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dougall, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, the Court affirmed the District Court and held the statute unconstitutional. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing for the majority, recognized New York's "interest in establishing its own form of government" and having civil servants "of undivided loyalty.” However, Section 53's citizenship restriction was imprecise and "swep[t] indiscriminately." Since it could prohibit noncitizens from jobs in a way that did not further the state interest, the distinction it made between citizens and aliens violated the Equal Protection Clause under Graham v. Richardson.

Broadrick v. Oklahoma

Mon, 26 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1639

Appellee

Oklahoma

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Broadrick

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 601 (1973)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oklahoma, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Kras

Wed, 18 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-749

Appellee

Kras

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 434 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, October 18, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United Air Lines v. Mahin

Wed, 08 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-862

Appellee

Mahin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United Air Lines

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 623 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1972

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United Air Lines, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

NLRB v. International Van Lines

Thu, 12 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-895

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

International Van Lines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 48 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, November 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Michigan v. Ohio

Mon, 11 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

30 ORIG

Plaintiff

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Ohio

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 420 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1972

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ohio, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Executive Jet Aviation v. City Of Cleveland

Wed, 15 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-678

Petitioner

Executive Jet Aviation

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Cleveland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 249 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, November 15, 1972

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Cleveland, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Robinson v. Neil

Wed, 06 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6272

Petitioner

Robinson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Neil

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 505 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robinson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

City Of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal

Tue, 20 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1637

Appellee

Lockheed Air Terminal

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

City Of Burbank

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 624 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lockheed Air Terminal, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 86 Stat. 1234

None

Norwood v. Harrison

Tue, 20 Feb 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-77

Petitioner

Harrison

Respondent

Norwood

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 455 (1973)

Argued

February 20-21, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Norwood, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Goosby v. Osser

Wed, 06 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6316

Petitioner

Goosby

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Osser

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 512 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Goosby, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District

Mon, 08 Jan 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1456

Appellee

Tulare Water District

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Salyer Land Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 719 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Tulare Water District, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Wed, 08 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania

601 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19106

Philadelphia, PA 19106

United States

39° 57' 2.3436" N, 75° 9' 2.1636" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1470

Petitioner

Kurtzman

Respondent

Lemon

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 192 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kurtzman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn.

Wed, 15 Nov 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1136

Petitioner

Tillman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 431 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, November 15, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tillman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1982)

None

Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines

Tue, 10 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-827

Petitioner

Hughes Tool Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Trans World Airlines

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-830

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 363 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Trans World Airlines, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 1378

None

Braden v. 30Th Judicial Circuit Court Of Ky.

Tue, 05 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6516

Petitioner

Braden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

30Th Judicial Circuit Court Of Ky.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 484 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Braden, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Goldstein v. California

Wed, 13 Dec 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1192

Petitioner

Goldstein

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 546 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 13, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8: Patent and Copyright Clause

None

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm'n

Tue, 20 Mar 1973 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-419

Petitioner

Pittsburgh Press Co.

Respondent

Human Rel. Comm'n

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 376 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Human Rel. Comm'n, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.

Tue, 17 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-873

Appellee

Falstaff Brewing Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 526 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

California v. Larue

Tue, 10 Oct 1972 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-36

Appellee

Larue

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 109 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None