Cases - 1989 term

Kansas v. Utilicorp United Inc.

Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2109

Petitioner

Kansas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Utilicorp United Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 199 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondent)

Floyd R. Finch, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas J. Greenan (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Utilicorp United Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Boyde v. California

Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6613

Petitioner

Boyde

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 370 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Frederick R. Millar, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Dennis A. Fischer (on behalf of the Petitioner, (appointed by this Court))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Westside High School

8701 Pacific Street Omaha NE 68114

Omaha, NE 68114

United States

41° 14' 55.5828" N, 96° 2' 50.748" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1597

Petitioner

BOE of Westside Community Schools

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mergens

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 226 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the United States)

Jay A. Sekulow (Argued the cause for the private respondents)

Allen E. Daubman (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The school administration at Westside High School denied permission to a group of students to form a Christian club with the same privileges and meeting terms as other Westside after-school student clubs. In addition to citing the Establishment Clause, Westside refused the club's formation because it lacked a faculty sponsor. When the school board upheld the administration's denial, Mergens and several other students sued. The students alleged that Westside's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages. On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling, the Court of Appeals found in favor of the students. The Supreme Court granted Westside certiorari.

Question

Was Westside's prohibition against the formation of a Christian club consistent with the Establishment Clause, thereby rendering the Equal Access Act unconstitutional?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mergens, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 20 U.S.C. 4071

No. In distinguishing between "curriculum" and "noncurriculum student groups," the Court held that since Westside permitted other noncurricular clubs, it was prohibited under the Equal Access Act from denying equal access to any after- school club based on the content of its speech. The proposed Christian club would be a noncurriculum group since no other course required students to become its members, its subject matter would not actually be taught in classes, it did not concern the school's cumulative body of courses, and its members would not receive academic credit for their participation. The Court added that the Equal Access Act was constitutional because it served an overriding secular purpose by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of philosophical, political, or other types of speech. As such, the Act protected the Christian club's formation even if its members engaged in religious discussions.

Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett

Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2035

Petitioner

Adams Fruit Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barrett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 638 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Advocates

Bonita L. Kneeland (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Barrett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 29 U.S.C. 1854

None

Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly

Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-431

Petitioner

Yellow Freight System, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donnelly

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 820 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Jeffrey Ivan Pasek (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John J. Henely (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

IRS v. FLRA

Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2123

Petitioner

IRS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

FLRA

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 922 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Robert J. Englehart (on behalf of the Respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority)

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gregory O'Duden (on behalf of the Respondent National Treasury Employees Union)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for IRS, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7101

None

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney

Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-386

Petitioner

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Feeney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 299 (1990)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1990

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1990

Advocates

Richard W. Miller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joseph Lesser (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Feeney, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Butterworth v. Smith

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1993

Petitioner

Butterworth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 624 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Advocates

Gregg Darrow Thomas (on behalf of the Respondent)

George L. Waas (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Maislin Industries, US, Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.

Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-624

Petitioner

Maislin Industries, US, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Primary Steel, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 116 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas M. Auchincloss, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Maislin Industries, US, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

English v. General Electric Co.

Wed, 25 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-152

Petitioner

English

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Electric Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 72 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Respondent)

M. Travis Payne (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Christopher J. Wright (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for English, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Atomic Energy

None

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health

Wed, 06 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Cruzan Carterville, MO

United States

37° 8' 57.21" N, 94° 26' 34.8108" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1503

Petitioner

Cruzan

Respondent

Director, Missouri Dept. of Health

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 261 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1990

Advocates

William H. Colby (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Robert L. Presson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Kenneth W. Starr (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. When Cruzan's parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's policy over Cruzan's right to refuse treatment.

Question

Did the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit Cruzan's parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter's behalf?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.

Osborne v. Ohio

Tue, 05 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Clyde Osborne

"793 North Park Street**** No. 3" Columbus OH 43215

Columbus, OH 43215

United States

39° 58' 41.8476" N, 83° 0' 20.9268" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-5986

Appellee

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Osborne

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 103 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

S. Adele Shank (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Ronald J. O'Brien (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

After obtaining a warrant, Ohio police searched the home of Clyde Osborne and found explicit pictures of naked, sexually aroused male adolescents. Osborne was then prosecuted and found guilty of violating an Ohio law that made the possession of child pornography illegal.

Question

Did Ohio's ban on the possession of child pornography violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

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

The Court held that Ohio could constitutionally proscribe the possession of child pornography. The Court argued that the case at hand was distinct from Stanley v. Georgia, "because the interest underlying child pornography prohibitions far exceed the interests justifying the Georgia law at issue in Stanley." Ohio did not rely on "a paternalistic interest in regulating Osborne's mind;" rather, Ohio merely attempted to protect the victims of child pornography. The Court argued that regulations on production and distribution of child pornography were insufficient and could not dry up the market for pornographic materials. The Court also found that an error in jury instructions in the lower courts mandated Osborne be given a new trial.

United States v. Energy Resource Co.

Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-255

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Energy Resource Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 545 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Guy B. Moss (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Energy Resource Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Michigan Chamber of Commerce

600 S. Walnut Lansing MI 48933

Lansing, MI 48933

United States

42° 43' 36.7248" N, 84° 33' 27.0144" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1569

Appellee

Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Austin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 652 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Advocates

Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the Appellants)

Richard D. McLellan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Michigan Campaign Finance Act prohibited corporations from using treasury money for independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices. However, if a corporation set up an independent fund designated solely for political purposes, it could make such expenditures. The law was enacted with the assumption that "the unique legal and economic characteristics of corporations necessitate some regulation of their political expenditures to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption." The Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to support a candidate for Michigan's House of Representatives by using general funds to sponsor a newspaper advertisement.

Question

Did the Michigan Campaign Finance Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

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

No. In making its case, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce argued that it should have been excluded from the act's restrictions since the Chamber was a "nonprofit ideological corporation" which was more analogous to a political association than a business firm. The Court disagreed and upheld the Michigan law. Justice Marshall found that the Chamber was akin to a business group given its activities, linkages with community business leaders, and high degree of members (over seventy-five percent) which were business corporations. Furthermore, Marshall found that the statute was narrowly crafted and implemented to achieve the important goal of maintaining integrity in the political process.

Hughey v. United States

Tue, 27 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-5691

Petitioner

Hughey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 411 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1990

Advocates

Lucien B. Campbell (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hughey, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3663

None

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC

Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-493

Petitioner

University of Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

EEOC

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 182 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Rosalie Tung was an Asian-American professor who believed that she was denied tenure because of her sex and her race. To investigate her claim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked the University for access to Tung's confidential peer review file. Citing the protection of academic freedom, the University refused to cooperate so as to avoid breaching the confidentiality promised to reviewers.

Question

Does requiring a university to disclose confidential peer review materials in an investigation violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for EEOC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

A unanimous Court held that the need to ferret out invidious discrimination served a compelling government interest which justified inspection of confidential files. Since the EEOC was not interested in forcing the University to accept specific standards for promotion and it did not attempt to control the content of speech on campus, Justice Blackmun dismissed Pennsylvania's argument that the EEOC's actions violated academic freedom.

Sullivan v. Finkelstein

Tue, 24 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-504

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Finkelstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 617 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1990

Advocates

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kenneth V. Handal (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sullivan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Whitmore v. Arkansas

Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-7146

Petitioner

Whitmore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 149 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Advocates

J. Steven Clark (on behalf of the Respondents)

Arthur L. Allen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Arkansas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Pennsylvania Public Welfare Dept. v. Davenport

Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-156

Petitioner

Pennsylvania Public Welfare Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davenport

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 552 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Walter W. Cohen (on behalf of the Petitioners)

David A. Searles (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Davenport, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Keller v. State Bar of California

Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1905

Petitioner

Keller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Bar of California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 1 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Anthony T. Caso (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Seth M. Hufstedler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Keller, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Department of Labor v. Triplett

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1671

Petitioner

Department of Labor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Triplett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-1688

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 715 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Advocates

Jane Moran (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the Petitioner U.S. Department of Labor)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1105

Petitioner

Guidry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 365 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Advocates

Eldon E. Silverman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph M. Goldhammer (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Guidry, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Hallstrom v. Tillamook County

Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-42

Petitioner

Hallstrom

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tillamook County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 20 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Advocates

Kim T. Buckley (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Brian J. Martin (as amicus curiae supporting the Respondent)

I. Franklin Hunsaker (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Tillamook County, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 6972

None

Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA

Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-65

Petitioner

Fort Stewart Schools

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 641 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

William E. Persina (on behalf of the Respondents)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FLRA, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7102

None

Commissioner, INS v. Jean

Mon, 23 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-601

Petitioner

Commissioner, INS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jean

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 154 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Ira Jay Kurzban (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jean, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc.

Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-334

Petitioner

Lytle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Household Mfg., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 545 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Advocates

Judith Reed (on behalf of the Petitioner)

H. Lane Dennard, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lytle, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC

Wed, 28 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-453

Petitioner

Metro Broadcasting Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

FCC

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Astroline Communications Company Limited Partnership v. Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford, Inc., et al, No. 89-700

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 547 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

Harry F. Cole (on behalf of Respondent)

Margaret Polivy (on behalf of the Private Respondent)

Margot Polivy (Argued the cause for respondent Rainbow Broadcasting Company)

Gregory H. Guillot (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

J. Roger Wollenberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Daniel M. Armstrong (Argued the cause for the federal respondent)

Facts of the Case

This case challenged the constitutionality of two minority preference policies of the Federal Communications Commission. Under the first policy challenged by Metro Broadcasting, Inc., minority applicants for broadcast licenses were given preference if all other relevant factors were roughly equal. The second policy, known as the "distress sale," was challenged by Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford Inc. This policy allowed broadcasters in danger of losing their licenses to sell their stations to minority buyers before the FCC formally ruled on the viability of the troubled stations. This case was decided together with Astroline Communications Co. v. Shurberg Broadcasting, in which Faith Center Inc. made a "distress sale" of its television license to a minority outfit owned by Astroline. Shurberg, a non-minority applicant for a similar license, challenged the FCC's approval of Faith Center's sale to Astroline.

Question

Did the FCC's minority preference policies violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

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

No. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that the FCC's minority preference policies were constitutional because they provided appropriate remedies for discrimination victims and were aimed at the advancement of legitimate congressional objectives for program diversity. The FCC's minority preference policies were closely related to, and substantially advanced, Congress's legitimate interest in affording the public a diverse array of programming options. The availability of program diversity serves the entire viewing and listening public, not just minorities, and is therefore consistent with First Amendment values. Finally, the Court noted that the FCC's minority preference policy did not unduly burden nonminorities. The FCC did not predetermine the number of distress sales, and could only invoke them in a small number of cases, when no competing bids were filed and the licensee elected to sell at a lower price rather than risk an FCC investigation (see also Adarand Constructors v. Pena).

Selvage v. Collins

Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6700

Petitioner

Selvage

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Collins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 108 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Advocates

Richard H. Burr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert S. Walt (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-640

Petitioner

Lujan

Respondent

National Wildlife Federation

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 871 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the case for the respondents)

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) challenged 1,250 land-use designations made by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). NWF filed suit under section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming that the actions were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." NWF argued that it had standing to sue because two of its members used public lands "in the vicinity" of lands affected by the BLM's decisions (four other members submitted affidavits claiming that they, too, used lands close to affected areas, but the District Court ruled that the affidavits had been submitted too late).

The BLM challenged the NWF's right to sue, and the District Court agreed. It found that the two affidavits filed in a timely manner did not show that the members had been sufficiently affected to have standing to sue. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if they had had standing to challenge those specific BLM decisions, they would not have had standing to challenge all 1,250.

On appeal, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the initial two affidavits were enough to give them standing to challenge all 1,250 decisions. Moreover, the Court ruled that the District Court had abused its discretion by refusing to consider the additional four affidavits.

Question

Does an organization representing private citizens who use public land "in the vicinity" of areas affected by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land-use designations have standing to challenge those designations under section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act? Does standing to challenge several individual BLM decision confer standing to challenge those decisions as a whole, even when the organization's members are not affected by the bulk of the decisions?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lujan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

No and no. In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that NWF did not have standing to challenge the land-use designations. The two timely affidavits were not enough to show that the group members had actually been affected by the BLM decisions. Even if they had been, and if the four additional affidavits had been considered (which the Supreme Court ruled had not been necessary), the right to challenge the individual decisions would not have conveyed a right to challenge all of them. The decisions were not a single "agency action" but rather a series of actions which would have to be challenged individually. "The case-by-case approach that this requires is understandably frustrating to an organization such as [NWF], which has as its objective across-the-board protection of our Nation's wildlife and the streams and forests that support it," wrote Justice Scalia. "But this is the traditional, and remains the normal, mode of operation of the courts. ... Until confided to us, ... more sweeping actions are for the other branches."

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Alcan Aluminium

Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1400

Petitioner

Franchise Tax Board Of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alcan Aluminium

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 331 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence A. Salibra, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Timothy G. Laddish (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press v. Thornburgh

Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1640

Petitioner

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thornburgh

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 38 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1989

Decided

Monday, November 13, 1989

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Respondents)

William B. Schultz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Sperry Corp.

Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-952

Appellee

Sperry Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 52 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Advocates

John D. Seiver (on behalf of the Appellees)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno

Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1595

Petitioner

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bonjorno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-1771

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 827 (1990)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Richard P. McElroy (on behalf of the Petitioners/Cross-Respondents)

Henry T. Reath (on behalf of the Respondents/Cross-Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1961

None

Illinois v. Rodriguez

Tue, 20 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2018

Petitioner

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rodriguez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 177 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Joseph Claps (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James W. Reilley (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zinermon v. Burch

Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1965

Petitioner

Zinermon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 113 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Advocates

Richard M. Powers (on behalf of Respondent)

Louis F. Hubener, III (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Burch, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Collins v. Youngblood

Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-742

Petitioner

Collins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Youngblood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 37 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Charles A. Palmer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Jon R. Farrar (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Collins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10: Ex Post Facto

None

United States v. Montalvo-Murillo

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-163

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Montalvo-Murillo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 711 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bernard J. Panetta, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Northbrook National Ins. Co. v. Brewer

Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-995

Petitioner

Northbrook National Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brewer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 6 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Advocates

Peter Michael Jung (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Timothy M. Fults (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Northbrook National Ins. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1332

None

Duro v. Reina

Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6546

Petitioner

Duro

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 676 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

John Trebon (on behalf of the Petitioner, (appointed by this Court))

Richard B. Wilks (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1474

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 132 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1989

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1989

Advocates

Barring Coughlin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

White v. United States

Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-928

Petitioner

White

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 5 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1989

Decided

Monday, October 16, 1989

Advocates

Kenneth A. Payment (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ferens v. John Deere Co.

Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1512

Petitioner

Ferens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John Deere Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 516 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Richard B. Tucker, III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

David P. Helwig (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ferens, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles

Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-840

Petitioner

Golden State Transit Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Los Angeles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 103 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Advocates

John Haggerty (on behalf of the Respondent)

Zachary D. Fasman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Golden State Transit Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

United States v. Eichman

Mon, 14 May 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1433

Appellee

Eichman

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

United States v. Haggerty, No. 89-1434

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 310 (1990)

Argued

Monday, May 14, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

William M. Kunstler (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman's and Haggerty's) were argued together.

Question

Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Eichman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 700

In a 5-to-4 decision, coming on the heels of a similar holding in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression." Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear, argued Justice Brennan in one of his final opinions.

Sawyer v. Smith

Wed, 25 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-5809

Petitioner

Sawyer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 227 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Dorothy A. Pendergast (on behalf of the Respondent)

Catherine Hancock (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Kokinda

Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2031

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Kokinda

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 720 (1990)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the case for the United States)

Jay A. Sekulow (Argued the case for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Marsha Kokinda and Kevin Pearl were volunteers for the National Democratic Policy Committee. They set up a table on a sidewalk near a post office to solicit contributions and sell political literature. After post office employees received a large number of complaints, Kokinda and Pearl were asked to leave. They refused, at which point postal inspectors arrested them. They were charged and convicted of violating 39 CFR 232.1(h)(1)(1989), which prohibits "soliciting alms and contributions ... on postal premises." They appealed the convictions, arguing that they violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. The District Court, ruling that the sidewalk in question (which was entirely on Postal Service property and was intended only for traffic to and from the Post Office) was not a public forum, found that the restrictions were reasonable and therefore did not violate the First Amendment. On appeal, however, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the sidewalk was a traditional public forum and that the government's regulations were therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Because the government had no significant interest in banning solicitation, the convictions were unconstitutional.

Question

Is a sidewalk that is entirely contained by Postal Service property and intended only for traffic to and from Postal Service buildings a public forum? If it is a public forum, does a prohibition of solicitation pass strict scrutiny? If it is not a public forum, does it pass a "reasonableness" test?

Conclusion

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

In a divided opinion, the Court ruled that the prohibition was not unconstitutional. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for a four-member plurality, wrote that the sidewalk was not a public forum. "Regulation of speech activity on governmental property that has been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity, such as public streets and parks, is examined under strict scrutiny. ... But regulation of speech activity where the Government has not dedicated its property to First Amendment activity is examined only for reasonableness." The need to prevent solicitors from interrupting postal business satisfied this "reasonableness" test, so the convictions were constitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, held that it was unnecessary to determine whether the sidewalk was a public forum because the regulation met the traditional standard applied to time, place, and manner restrictions of protected expression.

General Motors Corp. v. United States

Wed, 21 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-369

Petitioner

General Motors Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 530 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Theodore L. Garrett (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Verdugo-Urquidez's Residence Mexicali

United States

32° 38' 44.052" N, 115° 26' 43.2312" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1353

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Verdugo-Urquidez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 259 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (Argued the cause for the United States)

Michael Pancer (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. In cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers apprehended and transported him to the U.S. border, where he was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses. Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches, but no search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received. At trial, the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Question

Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country?

Conclusion

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

No. The text of the Fourth Amendment concerns "the people," suggesting a concern with persons who are part of the national community, as contrasted with aliens without any substantial connection to the U.S. Moreover, extraterritorial aliens are not even entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment, which speaks in the relatively more universal term of "person." And non-"fundamental" rights are not even guaranteed to inhabitants of unincorporated territories under U.S sovereign control, much less aliens. Therefore, any restrictions on searches and seizures of nonresident aliens and their foreign property must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty or legislation.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz

Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Michigan State Police Department

333 S. Grand Ave. Lansing MI 48909

Lansing, MI 48909

United States

42° 43' 50.9304" N, 84° 33' 2.4228" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1897

Petitioner

Michigan Department of State Police

Respondent

Rick Sitz

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Thomas L. Casey (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Stephen L. Nightingale (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Mark Granzotto (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. Before the first roadblock went into effect, Rick Sitz, a licensed Michigan driver, challenged the checkpoints and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Sitz was victorious in the Michigan lower courts.

Question

Did the drunk driving checkpoints violate motorists' privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan Department of State Police, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight." The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program.

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.

Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1955

Appellee

Continental Bank Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lewis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 472 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Andrew S. Gordon (on behalf of the Appellees)

Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lewis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 101 Stat. 554

None