Cases by Issue - Miscellaneous

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:27 +0000

Location

Arkansas General Assembly

425 W Capitol Ave Little Rock AR 72201

Little Rock, AR 72201

United States

34° 44' 39.3288" N, 92° 16' 31.2348" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1456

Petitioner

U.S. Term Limits

Respondent

Ray Thornton

Consolidation

No. 93-1828

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 779 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 1994

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1995

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (Argued the cause for the respondent Hill in both cases)

J. Winston Bryant (Pro se, argued the cause for petitioner in Bryant v. Hill)

John G. Kester (Argued the cause for U.S. Term Limits, Inc)

Drew S. Days, III (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.

Question

Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Thornton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"

United States v. Texas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1729

Petitioner

United States et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Texas et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 529 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1993

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1993

Advocates

James C. Todd (on behalf of the Respondents)

Thomas G. Hungar (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 3701

None

Perpich v. Department of Defense

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-542

Petitioner

Perpich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Department of Defense

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 334 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

John R. Tunheim (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department of Defense, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 672

None

West Virginia v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-937

Petitioner

West Virginia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 305 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Advocates

Charles G. Brown (on behalf of the petitioner)

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. (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:

None

Bennett v. New Jersey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2064

Petitioner

Bennett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 632 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Mary Ann Burgess (on behalf of Respondent)

Michael W. McConnell (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bennett, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Elementary and Secondary Education

None

Bennett v. Kentucky Dept. Of Education

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1798

Petitioner

Bennett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Dept. Of Education

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 656 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1985

Advocates

Robert L. Chenoweth (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Bennett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Elementary and Secondary Education

None

Bell v. New Jersey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2125

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 773 (1983)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1983

Advocates

Michael R. Cole (on behalf of the Respondent)

Margaret Hunting (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Elementary and Secondary Education

None

Watt v. Alaska

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1890

Petitioner

Watt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alaska

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 79-1904

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 259 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Advocates

Charles K. Cranston (on behalf of the Petitioner, Kenai Peninsula Borough)

Louis F. Claiborne (on behalf of the Petitioners, Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al)

G. Thomas Koester (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Alaska, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 30 U.S.C. 191

None

State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-567

Petitioner

State Land Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-577

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 363 (1977)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1976

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for State Land Board, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Cousins v. Wigoda

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1106

Petitioner

Cousins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wigoda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 477 (1975)

Argued

Monday, November 11, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-397

Petitioner

Bonelli Cattle Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 313 (1973)

Argued

Monday, October 15, 1973

Decided

Monday, December 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bonelli Cattle Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1459

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Little Lake Misere Land Co.

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 580 (1973)

Argued

January 15-16, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Zschernig v. Miller

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Miller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zschernig

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 429 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1967

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Zschernig, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 2, Section 1: Executive Power

None

First Nat. Bank v. Walker Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

First Nat. Bank

Respondent

Walker Bank

Consolidation

No. 73

No. 88

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 252 (1966)

Argued

November 7-8, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Walker Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 36

None

United States v. Yazell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yazell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 341 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1965

Decided

Monday, January 17, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Corbett v. Stergios

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

179

Appellee

Stergios

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Corbett

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 124 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bank Of America v. Parnell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bank Of America

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Parnell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 22

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 29 (1956)

Argued

Thursday, October 18, 1956

Decided

Tuesday, November 13, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bank Of America, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Arkansas v. Sullivan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-262

Petitioner

Arkansas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sullivan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 769 (2001)

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Facts of the Case

In 1998, Officer Joe Taylor of the Conway, Arkansas, Police Department stopped Kenneth Andrew Sullivan for traffic violations. When Officer Taylor saw Sullivan's license, he realized that he was aware of narcotics intelligence regarding him. Sullivan was then arrested. Afterwards Officer Taylor conducted an inventory search of Sullivan's vehicle and discovered methamphetamine as well as items of drug paraphernalia. Ultimately, Sullivan was charged with various state-law drug offenses, unlawful possession of a weapon, and speeding. Sullivan moved to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle on the basis that his arrest was merely a "pretext and sham to search" him and, therefore, violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court granted the motion and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. In petitioning for rehearing, the State argued that the court had erred by taking into account Office Taylor's subjective motivation using Whren v. United States, which makes "the ulterior motives of police officers...irrelevant so long as there is probable cause for the traffic stop." The court rejected the argument and denied the petition.

Question

Did the Arkansas Supreme Court err by taking into account an officer's subjective motivation in its probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's controlling precedent, Whren v. United States?

Conclusion

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

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's controlling precedent, which held that police officers' subjective intentions played no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis, and reversed its decision. In addressing the Arkansas court's alternative holding, that it could interpret the U.S. Constitution to provide greater protection than the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that while a State may impose greater restrictions, it "may not impose such greater restrictions as a matter of federal constitutional law when this Court specifically refrains from imposing them." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Stephen G. Breyer.