Cases by Issue - Remand to Determine Basis of State Court Decision

Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-836

Petitioner

Bush

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Palm Beach County Canvassing Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

531 U.S. 70 (2000)

Argued

Friday, December 1, 2000

Decided

Monday, December 4, 2000

Advocates

Joseph P. Klock (Argued the cause for petitioner Harris)

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Paul Hancock (Argued the cause for petitioner Florida Attorney General)

Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for petitioner Bush)

Facts of the Case

The 2000 presidential election remained in limbo with the outcome dependent on the winner of the popular vote in Florida. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush held a slim lead in the tally. Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore challenged the decision of Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, to certify the results of the presidential election on November 14, the deadline provided by Florida's election law. Gore also challenged Harris's decision to ignore the outcome of manual recounts his campaign had requested in four Florida counties, recounts available under another provision of Florida's election code. The Florida Supreme Court heard Gore's challenges and held that Harris could not certify the outcome until November 26. The Florida Supreme Court also held that Harris must include the results of manual recounts in the certified results. Governor Bush intervened. Harris and Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question

Do post-election court decisions that limit legislators' or executive officials' discretion to certify election results violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution or 3 USC Section 5? Did the Florida Supreme Court's decision change the manner in which Florida's electoral votes were chosen, thereby violating Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which confers plenary power in federal election matters on state legislatures?

Conclusion

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

In a per curiam opinion, a unanimous court held that there was "considerable uncertainty" as to the reasons for the Florida Supreme Court's decision. Accordingly the court did not review the federal questions presented by the case. Instead it vacated the Florida Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case for clarification of two questions. One, did the Florida Supreme Court think that the Florida Constitution circumscribed the plenary power of the Florida Legislature in election matters conferred by the US Constitution? And two, how much weight did the Florida Supreme Court give to 3 USC Section 5?

Employment Division v. Smith

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

Location

Drug rehabilitation clinic in Douglas County Douglas County, OR

United States

43° 7' 33.8484" N, 123° 14' 57.2496" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-946

Petitioner

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alfred Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-947, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Black

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 660 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 27, 1988

Advocates

William F. Gary (Deputy Attorney General of Oregon, argued the cause for petitioners)

Suanne Lovendahl (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. The clinic fired them because they used a hallucinogenic drug called peyote for religious purposes while worshipping at their Native American Church. The Oregon Employment Division denied them unemployment compensation because it deemed they were fired for work-related "misconduct." The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that this violated their religious free exercise rights provided by the First Amendment. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed.

Question

Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using prohibited drugs for religious purposes?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Employment Division, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

Undecided. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for a 5-3 court. The Court instructed the Oregon Supreme Court to determine whether peyote usage for religious purposes is prohibited under Oregon law, or only by the employer. The Court required this information to consider the constitutionality of the denial of benefits.

Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1034

Appellee

American Booksellers Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Virginia

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 383 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1987

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1988

Advocates

Paul M. Bator (on behalf of the appellees)

Richard W. Smith (on behalf of the appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Ohio v. Gallagher

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:09 +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

California v. Krivda

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-651

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Krivda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 33 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, October 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Aldrich v. Aldrich

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Aldrich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aldrich

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 249 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Dresner v. City Of Tallahassee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dresner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Tallahassee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 136 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Clay v. Sun Insurance Office

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

349

Petitioner

Clay

Respondent

Sun Insurance Office

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 207 (1960)

Argued

March 22-23, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Blackburn v. Alabama

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:26:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

426

Petitioner

Blackburn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 393 (1957)

Argued

Thursday, May 2, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None