Cases by Issue - Appeal Jurisdiction

Federal Election Commission v. Nra Political Victory Fund

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1151

Petitioner

Federal Election Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nra Political Victory Fund et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

513 U.S. 88 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1994

Decided

Tuesday, December 6, 1994

Advocates

Charles J. Cooper (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul Bender (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Lawrence M. Noble (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Nra Political Victory Fund, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 2 U.S.C. 437

None

School Board of Nassau County v. Arline

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:19 +0000

Location

Nassau County School Board

1201 Atlantic Ave Fernandina Beach FL 32034

Fernandina Beach, FL 32034

United States

30° 40' 13.0368" N, 81° 27' 16.8768" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1277

Petitioner

School Board of Nassau County

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gene Arline

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 273 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Advocates

Brian T. Hayes (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Charles Fried (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

George K. Rahdert (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Gene Arline could no longer teach elementary school because she had tuberculosis, a contagious disease. The superintendent of schools in Nassau County, Florida dismissed her after it became clear that her illness was recurrent. The school system did not grant her financial relief. Arline claimed in a federal district court that this violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits state-funded programs from denying relief to applicants solely because they are handicapped. The school conceded it dismissed her solely because of her illness, but contended that a contagious disease like tuberculosis did not qualify her as handicapped. The court ruled that the Act did not define contagious illnesses as handicaps, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. It found that Arline was "otherwise qualified" to teach except for her illness, and ruled that this qualified her for handicapped benefits.

Question

Does Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provides relief to handicapped individuals, extend relief to individuals afflicted with contagious diseases?

Conclusion

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

Yes. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the opinion for a 7-2 court. The Court relied on the qualification criteria for "handicapped status" provided by the Department of Health of Human Services (HHS), which Congress authorized to implement the Act. HHS made it clear that the Act covers illnesses that cause a "record of impairment" upon a patient's "major life activities." The Court found that both the "contagious effects of a disease" and "the disease's physical effects" can impair the patient's ability to work. The Act intended to cover "those who are actually physically impaired, but also those who are regarded as impaired," since both conditions can prevent a patient from finding work.

Brenner v. Manson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brenner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Manson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 519 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, November 17, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Brenner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 101

None

United States v. Adams

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 39 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Adams, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

El Paso v. Simmons

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:00 +0000

Location

Texas State Capitol

1100 Congress Avenue Austin TX 78701

Austin, TX 78701

United States

30° 16' 21.882" N, 97° 44' 28.0752" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Simmons

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

El Paso

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 497 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, November 17, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1965

Facts of the Case

Since the late 19th century, Texas sold land to facilitate settlement in the state and construction of schools. If, however, a purchaser missed an interest payment on the property, the land was immediately forfeited back to the state unless the owner made the payment before the land could be re-sold. Under this program, Greenbury Simmons purchased and then forfeited some land in 1947. Just over five years later he offered to pay the interest to re-acquire the property. The state refused to comply with his wishes citing a 1941 amendment to its law which gave individuals five years to claim their forfeited land. Simmons's land was sold to the City of El Paso in 1955.

Question

Did the 1941 amendment to the Texas law violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for El Paso, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1: Contract Clause

While the Court agreed that the power of a state to modify the obligation of a contract is not limitless, it found that the 1941 amendment was not offensive to the Contract Clause. Justice White resaoned that the amendment was enacted with the intent of restoring "confidence in the stability and integrity of land titles" and to rectify difficulties that mineral speculators were creating for the state as it attempted to implement its land sale program. White argued that the five-year limit provided "purchasers with a bona fide interest in their lands" plenty of time to rescue their property while it served an important state interest of encouraging defaulting purchasers to comply with their contractual obligations to Texas.

Hanson v. Denckla

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

107

Petitioner

Hanson

Respondent

Denckla

Consolidation

No. 117

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 235 (1958)

Argued

March 10-11, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lawrence v. Chater

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-9323

Petitioner

Lawrence

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chater

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

516 U.S. 163 (1996)

Decided

Monday, January 8, 1996

Facts of the Case

Kemmerlyn Lawrence asserted entitlement to Social Security benefits as the dependant, unmarried minor child of a deceased insured individual. Under the Social Security Act, which requires paternity to be decided by state law, Lawrence acknowledged that her claim appeared defeated, but agued that the relevant North Carolina law's proof of paternity requirements are unconstitutional. After the Federal Government argued that a state paternity law's constitutionality need not be considered before applying it to determine entitlement to Social Security benefits, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Lawrence's benefits. Subsequently, the Social Security Administration reexamined its position and concluded that the Act does require a determination whether a state intestacy statute is constitutional. The Solicitor General thus invited the Court to grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case (GVR) to the Court of Appeals to decide the case or remand it to the Social Security Commissioner for reconsideration.

Question

Does the U.S. Supreme Court have the authority to set aside a lower court's ruling and remand the case without finding that the lower court committed some error?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lawrence, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 416

Yes. In a 7-2 per curiam opinion, the Court held that it had the power to issue a GVR order and that such an order is an appropriate exercise of its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction. "In an appropriate case, a GVR order conserves the scarce resources of this Court that might otherwise be expended on plenary consideration, assists the court below by flagging a particular issue that it does not appear to have fully considered, assists this Court by procuring the benefit of the lower court's insight before we rule on the merits, and alleviates the 'potential for unequal treatment' that is inherent in our inability to grant plenary review of all pending cases raising similar issues," stated the unsigned opinion.