Cases - 1975 term

Roberts v. Louisiana

Tue, 30 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Louisiana State Capitol

900 N 3rd St Baton Rouge LA 70802

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

United States

30° 27' 19.6488" N, 91° 11' 18.5892" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5844

Petitioner

Roberts

Respondent

Louisiana

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 325 (1976)

Argued

March 30-31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae)

James L. Babin (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Anthony G. Amsterdam (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Following his conviction for first-degree murder, and subsequent imposition of a death sentence, Roberts challenged the constitutionality of Louisiana's death penalty scheme. This scheme mandated the death penalty's imposition, regardless of any mercy recommendation, whenever the jury found that the defendant demonstrated a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm while in the commission of at least one of five different narrowly defined types of homicide. The sentencing scheme also required juries, in all first- degree murder cases, to be instructed on the lesser charges of manslaughter and second degree murder even if no evidence existed to support such verdicts.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Question

Does Louisiana's death-penalty sentencing scheme violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' safeguards against arbitrary and capricious death penalty impositions?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Roberts, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Yes. By mandating the death penalty's imposition for certain crimes, Louisiana's sentencing scheme fails to afford juries the constitutionally required opportunity to consider any mitigating factors presented either by the circumstances of the crime or the individual offender's character. The Supreme Court also held that by requiring jurors to be instructed on the lesser charges of manslaughter and second-degree murder, even if no evidence exits to support such verdicts, Louisiana's sentencing scheme encourages them to disregard their oaths by recommending a verdict for a lesser offense whenever they feel that the death penalty is inappropriate.

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

Wed, 14 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-940

Petitioner

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-949

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 800 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Colorado River Water Cons. Dist., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 43 U.S.C. 666

None

Hortonville Dist. v. Hortonville Ed. Assn.

Mon, 23 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1606

Petitioner

Hortonville Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hortonville Ed. Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 482 (1976)

Argued

February 23-24, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Testan

Wed, 12 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-753

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Testan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 392 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Tucker

None

Andresen v. Maryland

Wed, 25 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1646

Petitioner

Andresen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maryland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 463 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Oil Workers v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Mon, 29 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1254

Petitioner

Oil Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mobil Oil Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 407 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Oil Workers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Youakim v. Miller

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-6935

Appellee

Miller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Youakim

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 231 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Youakim, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Kerr v. United States District Court

Tue, 11 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1023

Petitioner

Kerr

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 394 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 11, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States District Court, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Bd.

Mon, 23 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-730

Appellee

Maryland Public Works Bd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Roemer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 736 (1976)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Maryland Public Works Bd., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

None

Fisher v. United States

Mon, 03 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-18

Petitioner

Fisher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States et al. v. Kasmir et al., No. 74-611

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 391 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioners in No. 74-611 and respondents in No. 74-18)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Imbler v. Pachtman

Mon, 03 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-5435

Petitioner

Imbler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pachtman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 409 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pachtman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Mon, 22 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-185

Petitioner

Machinists

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 132 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight

Wed, 12 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1025

Petitioner

Hines

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Anchor Motor Freight

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 554 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hines, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

General Electric Co. v. Gilbert

Mon, 19 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1589

Petitioner

General Electric Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gilbert

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1590

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 125 (1976)

Argued

January 19-20, 1976

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for General Electric Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Train v. Colorado Pub. Int. Research Group

Tue, 09 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1270

Petitioner

Train

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Colorado Pub. Int. Research Group

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 1 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Train, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Mathews v. Weber

Tue, 04 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-850

Petitioner

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Weber

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 261 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, January 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Weber, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 636

None

Woodson v. North Carolina

Wed, 31 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

North Carolina State Capitol

1 E Edenton St Raleigh NC 27601

Raleigh, NC 27601

United States

35° 46' 49.4652" N, 78° 38' 20.7204" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5491

Petitioner

Woodson

Respondent

North Carolina

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 280 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Advocates

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae)

Anthony G. Amsterdam (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The state of North Carolina enacted legislation that made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted first-degree murderers. Consequently, when James Woodson was found guilty of such an offense, he was automatically sentenced to death. Woodson challenged the law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, Proffitt v. Florida, and Roberts v. Louisiana.

Question

Did the mandatory death penalty law violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Woodson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the North Carolina law was unconstitutional. The Court found three problems with the law: First, the law "depart[ed] markedly from contemporary standards" concerning death sentences. The historical record indicated that the public had rejected mandatory death sentences. Second, the law provided no standards to guide juries in their exercise of "the power to determine which first-degree murderers shall live and which shall die." Third, the statute failed to allow consideration of the character and record of individual defendants before inflicting the death penalty. The Court noted that "the fundamental respect for humanity" underlying the Eighth Amendment required such considerations.

United States v. Mandujano

Wed, 05 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-754

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mandujano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 564 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, May 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Examining Board v. Flores De Otero

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1267

Appellee

Flores De Otero

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Examining Board

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 572 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Flores De Otero, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Ohio v. Gallagher

Tue, 02 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-492

Petitioner

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gallagher

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 257 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ohio, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Orleans

Mon, 22 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-328

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Orleans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 807 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kelley v. Johnson

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1269

Petitioner

Kelley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 238 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kelley, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Pennsylvania v. New Jersey

Wed, 03 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

68 ORIG

Plaintiff

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Defendant

Consolidation

No. 69 ORIG

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 660 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1975

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for New Jersey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Kleppe v. Delta Mining, Inc.

Mon, 06 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-521

Petitioner

Kleppe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Delta Mining, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 403 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kleppe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 801

None

Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

Tue, 02 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1302

Appellee

Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Usery

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. et al. v. Usery, Secretary of Labor, et al., No. 74-1316

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 1 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for appellants in No. 74-1302 and for appellees in No. 74-1316)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Usery, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Dinitz

Tue, 02 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-928

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dinitz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 600 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Stone v. Powell

Tue, 24 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Bonanza Liquor Store San Bernardino, CA

United States

34° 6' 30.042" N, 117° 17' 23.154" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1055

Petitioner

Stone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Powell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 74-1222

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 465 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Advocates

William C. Cunningham (Argued the cause for the respondent Rice)

Melvin Kent Kammerlohr (Argued the cause for the petitioner Wolff)

Robert W. Peterson (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent Powell)

Robert R. Granucci (Argued the cause for the petitioner Stone)

Facts of the Case

Lloyd Powell was convicted of murder by a California court. Powell sought relief in federal district court by filing a writ of federal habeas corpus. Powell claimed that the search that uncovered the murder weapon was unlawful and that the evidence should have been inadmissible at trial. This case was decided together with Wolf v. Rice.

Question

Were federal courts obligated to consider claims of illegal searches and seizures after such claims had been decided by state courts?

Conclusion

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

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that where states had provided opportunities for full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claims, the Constitution did not require the granting of federal habeas corpus relief. The Court also held that any additional benefits from considering search and seizure claims of state prisoners on collateral review would be small in relation to the costs. The Court found that the Fourth Amendment values protected by the exclusionary rule would not be significantly enhanced in such situations and that deterrence of police misconduct was unlikely to increase.

FPC v. Conway Corp.

Wed, 21 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-342

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Conway Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 271 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Conway Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

Doyle v. Ohio

Mon, 23 Feb 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5014

Petitioner

Doyle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-5015

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 610 (1976)

Argued

Monday, February 23, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

North v. Russell

Tue, 09 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1409

Appellee

Russell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

North

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 328 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Russell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Montanye v. Haymes

Wed, 21 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-520

Petitioner

Montanye

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Haymes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 236 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Time, Inc. v. Firestone

Tue, 14 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-944

Petitioner

Time, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Firestone

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 448 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Time, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Split Vote

None

New Hampshire v. Maine

Mon, 19 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

64 ORIG

Plaintiff

New Hampshire

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Maine

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 363 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New Hampshire, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

Tue, 20 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-251

Petitioner

Fitzpatrick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bitzer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Bitzer, Chairman, State Employees' Retirement Commission, et al. v. Matthews et al., No. 75-283

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 445 (1976)

Argued

April 20-21, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1976

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in both cases)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fitzpatrick, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause

None

Flint Ridge Dev. Co. v. Scenic Rivers Assn.

Tue, 27 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-510

Petitioner

Flint Ridge Dev. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scenic Rivers Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-545

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 776 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Flint Ridge Dev. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Environmental Policy

None

United States v. Maccollom

Mon, 29 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1487

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maccollom

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 317 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 10, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Washington v. Davis

Mon, 01 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Metropolitan Police Department

300 Indiana Ave NW Washington DC 20001

Washington, DC 20001

United States

38° 53' 41.3052" N, 77° 0' 56.0736" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1492

Petitioner

Washington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 229 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Advocates

Mark L. Evans (Argued the cause for the US Civil Service Commission as respondents under Rule 21 (4))

Richard B. Sobol (Argued the cause for the respondents Harley et al)

David P. Sutton (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

After the applications of two blacks were rejected by the District of Columbia Police Department, the two men filed suit against Mayor Walter E. Washington. The men alleged that the Department's recruiting procedures, including a written personnel test, discriminated against racial minorities. They claimed that the test was unrelated to job performance and excluded a disproportionate number of black applicants.

Question

Did the recruiting procedures violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the procedures and written personnel test did not constitute racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the Clause was designed to prevent official discrimination on the basis of race; laws or other official acts that had racially disproportionate impacts did not automatically become constitutional violations. The Court reasoned that the D.C. Police Department's procedures did not have discriminatory intent and were racially neutral measures of employment qualification.

Norton v. Mathews

Tue, 13 Jan 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6212

Appellee

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Norton

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 524 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

New Orleans v. Dukes

Tue, 11 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-775

Appellee

Dukes

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

New Orleans

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 297 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 11, 1975

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Orleans, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Dept. Of Air Force v. Rose

Wed, 08 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-489

Petitioner

Dept. Of Air Force

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rose

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 352 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mathews v. Eldridge

Mon, 06 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Location

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Social Security Division

200 Independence Ave SW Washington DC 20201

Washington, DC 20201

United States

38° 53' 15.2376" N, 77° 0' 49.104" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-204

Petitioner

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eldridge

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 319 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Advocates

Donald E. Earls (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

George Eldridge, who had originally been deemed disabled due to chronic anxiety and back strain, was informed by letter that his disability status was ending and that his benefits would be terminated. Social Security Administration procedures provided for ample notification and an evidentiary hearing before a final determination was made, but Eldridge's benefits were cut off until that hearing could take place. Eldridge challenged the termination of his benefits without such a hearing.

Question

Did the lack of an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of disability benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mathews, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. In an 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that the initial termination of Eldridge's benefits without a hearing did not violate due process. The Court noted that due process was "flexible" and called for "such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." The Court found that there were numerous safeguards to prevents errors in making decisions to terminate disability benefits and argued that "[a]t some point the benefit or an additional safeguard to the individual affected by the administrative action and to society, in terms of increased assurance that the action is just, may be outweighed by the cost."

Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona

Tue, 14 Oct 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-125

Petitioner

Alamo Land & Cattle Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 295 (1976)

Argued

October 14-15, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Alamo Land & Cattle Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

Mon, 01 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1563

Petitioner

Eastlake

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 668 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

South Dakota v. Opperman

Mon, 29 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-76

Petitioner

South Dakota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Opperman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 364 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dann v. Johnston

Tue, 09 Dec 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1033

Petitioner

Dann

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnston

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 219 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dann, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 103

None

Elrod v. Burns

Mon, 19 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1520

Petitioner

Elrod

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burns

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 347 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Burns, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

None

Bellotti v. Baird

Tue, 23 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

US District Court for the District of Massachusetts

595 Main St Worcester MA 06108

Worcester, MA 06108

United States

42° 15' 38.3292" N, 71° 48' 14.3172" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-73

Appellant

Frances Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

William Baird et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

Hunerwadel v. Baird, No. 75-109

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 132 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Decided

Thursday, July 1, 1976

Advocates

S. Stephen Rosenfeld (argued the cause for appellant Bellotti)

Brian A. Riley (argued the cause for appellant Hunerwadel)

Roy Lucas (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Massachusetts enacted a law specifying consent requirements for unmarried minors seeking abortions. William Baird, on behalf of an abortion counseling organization, Parents Aid Society, filed a class action under the Fourteenth Amendment challenging the statute against state Attorney General Frances Bellotti and all district attorneys within the state. Baird argued that the statute created a parental veto. Parental vetoes were ruled unconstitutional in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. The federal District Court struck down the law. Bellotti appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, contending that the District Court should have abstained until a decision on the statute by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Question

Should the federal District Court have abstained from rendering a judgment until a decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bellotti, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that the District Court should have abstained and vacated the judgment. There was ambiguity in whether the Massachusetts statute created a "parental veto," which under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth affected the constitutionality of the statute. Since the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling would have resolved the ambiguity, the District Court should have abstained.

Paul v. Davis

Tue, 04 Nov 1975 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-891

Petitioner

Paul

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 693 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Facts of the Case

A flyer identifying "active shoplifters" was distributed to merchants in the Louisville, Kentucky area. The flyer included a photograph of Edward C. Davis III, who had been arrestedon a shoplifting charge. When the charge was dismissed, Davis brought an action against Edgar Paul, the Louisville chief of police. Davis alleged that the distribution of the flyer had stigmatized him and deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Question

Did the distribution of the flyer violate Davis's right to privacy and liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Paul, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Davis had not been deprived of any constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause. The Court also emphasized that constitutional privacy interests did not cover Davis's claims. The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education." The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights.

Runyon v. McCrary

Mon, 26 Apr 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Fairfax-Brewster School

5860 Glen Forest Dr Falls Church VA 22041

Falls Church, VA 22041

United States

38° 51' 17.3988" N, 77° 8' 4.1244" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-62

Petitioner

Russell L. Runyon et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michael McCrary et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-66

No. 75-278

No. 75-306

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 160 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 26, 1976

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1976

Advocates

Louis Koutoulakos (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-62)

Andrew A. Lipscomb (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-66 and respondents in 75-306)

George S. Leonard (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-278)

Roderic V. O. Boggs (argued the cause for the petitioners in 75-306)

Allison W. Brown, Jr. (argued the cause for the respondents in 75-62, 75-66, and 75-278)

Facts of the Case

Michael McCrary and Colin Gonzales were black children who were denied admission to Bobbe's School. Gonzales was also denied admission to Fairfax- Brewster School. McCrary and Gonzales's parents filed a class action against the schools, suspecting the denials were due to their children's race. A federal district court ruled for McCrary and Gonzales, finding that the school's admission policies were racially discriminatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision.

Question

(1) Were the schools' admission policies in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981?

(2) Did 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 violate the Constitutional right to privacy and free association?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mccrary, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1981)

Yes and no. In a 6-2 opinion, the Court held that Section 1981 prohibited the racially discriminatory policies of the schools. While the schools were private, Jones v. Alfred Meyer Co. held that Section 1981 applied to "purely private acts of racial discrimination." Writing for the majority, Justice Potter Stewart described the school's admission policies as "classical violation[s] of Section 1981." While the Court acknowledged the right to free association of parents to send their children to schools that "promote the belief that racial segregation is desirable," it was not entitled the constitutional protection. Additionally, the Court cited Pierce v. Society of Sisters and the right of the State "reasonably to regulate all schools."

Gregg v. Georgia

Wed, 31 Mar 1976 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Georgia State Capitol

206 Washington Street Atlanta GA 30334

Atlanta, GA 30334

United States

33° 44' 56.9724" N, 84° 23' 16.6488" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6257

Petitioner

Gregg

Respondent

Georgia

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 153 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Decided

Friday, July 2, 1976

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae)

G. Hughel Harrison (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the petitioner)

G. Thomas Davis (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina.

Question

Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Georgia, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.