[Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation - 1992 Edition ]
[Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 1999]]
________________________________________________________________________
ACTS OF CONGRESS
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR
IN PART BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
________________________________________________________________________
[[Page 2001]]
ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1. Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 81, Sec. 13, in part).
Provision that ``. . . [the Supreme Court] shall have power to
issue . . . writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and
usages of law, to any . . . persons holding office, under authority of
the United States'' as applied to the issue of mandamus to the Secretary
of State requiring him to deliver to plaintiff a commission (duly signed
by the President) as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia
held an attempt to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, fixed by Article III, Sec. 2.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803).
2. Act of February 20, 1812 (2 Stat. 677).
Provisions establishing board of revision to annul titles
conferred many years previously by governors of the Northwest Territory
were held violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 160 (1868).
3. Act of March 6, 1820 (3 Stat. 548, Sec. 8, proviso).
The Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery within the
Louisiana Territory north of 36 deg. 30' except Missouri, held not
warranted as a regulation of Territory belonging to the United States
under Article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 (and see Fifth Amendment).
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).
Concurring: Chief Justice Taney.
Concurring specially: Justices Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel,
Campbell, and Catron.
Dissenting: Justices McLean, Curtis.
4. Act of February 25, 1862 (12 Stat. 345, Sec. 1); July 11, 1862 (12
Stat. 532, Sec. 1); March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 711, Sec. 3), each
in part only.
``Legal tender clauses,'' making noninterest-bearing United
States notes legal tender in payment of ``all debts, public and
private,'' so far as applied to debts contracted before passage of the
act, held not within express or implied powers of Congress under Article
I, Sec. 8, and inconsistent with Article I, Sec. 10, and Fifth
Amendment.
Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603 (1870); overruled in Knox
v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871).
Concurring: Chief Justice Chase, and Justices Nelson, Clifford,
Grier, and Field.
Dissenting: Justices Miller, Swayne, and Davis.
[[Page 2002]]
5. Act of May 20, 1862 (Sec. 35, 12 Stat. 394); Act of May 21, 1862 (12
Stat. 407); Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 187); Act of July 23,
1866 (14 Stat. 216); Revised Statutes Relating to the District
of Columbia, Act of June 22, 1874, (Sec. Sec. 281, 282, 294,
304, 18 Stat. pt. 2).
Provisions of law requiring, or construed to require, racial
separation in the schools of the District of Columbia, held to violate
the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
6. Act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 756, Sec. 5).
``So much of the fifth section . . . as provides for the removal
of a judgment in a State court, and in which the cause was tried by a
jury to the circuit court of the United States for a retrial on the
facts and law, is not in pursuance of the Constitution, and is void''
under the Seventh Amendment.
The Justices v. Murray, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 274 (1870).
7. Act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 766, Sec. 5).
Provision for an appeal from the Court of Claims to the Supreme
Court--there being, at the time, a further provision (Sec. 14) requiring
an estimate by the Secretary of the Treasury before payment of final
judgment, held to contravene the judicial finality intended by the
Constitution, Article III.
Gordon v. United States, 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 561 (1865). (Case was
dismissed without opinion; the grounds upon which this decision was made
were stated in a posthumous opinion by Chief Justice Taney printed in
the appendix to volume 117 U.S. 697.)
8. Act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat. 311, Sec. 13).
Provision that ``any prize cause now pending in any circuit
court shall, on the application of all parties in interest . . . be
transferred by that court to the Supreme Court. . . ,'' as applied in a
case where no action had been taken in the Circuit Court on the appeal
from the district court, held to propose an appeal procedure not within
Article III, Sec. 2.
The Alicia, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 571 (1869).
9. Act of January 24, 1865 (13 Stat. 424).
Requirement of a test oath (disavowing actions in hostility to
the United States) before admission to appear as attorney in a federal
court by virtue of any previous admission, held invalid as applied to an
attorney who had been pardoned by the President for all offenses during
the Rebellion--as ex post facto (Article I, Sec. 9, clause 3) and an
interference with the pardoning power (Article II, Sec. 2, clause 1).
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867).
[[Page 2003]]
Concurring: Justices Field, Wayne, Grier, Nelson, and Clifford.
Dissenting: Justices Miller, Swayne, and Davis, and Chief Justice
Chase.
10. Act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 484, Sec. 29).
General prohibition on sale of naphtha, etc., for illuminating
purposes, if inflammable at less temperature than 110 deg.F., held
invalid ``except so far as the section named operates within the United
States, but without the limits of any State,'' as being a mere police
regulation.
United States v. Dewitt, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 41 (1870).
11. Act of May 31, 1870 (16 Stat. 140, Sec. Sec. 3, 4).
Provisions penalizing (1) refusal of local election official to
permit voting by persons offering to qualify under State laws,
applicable to any citizens; and (2) hindering of any person from
qualifying or voting, held invalid under Fifteenth Amendment.
United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876).
Concurring: Chief Justice Waite, and Justices Miller, Field,
Bradley, Swayne, Davis, and Strong.
Dissenting: Justices Clifford, Hunt.
12. Act of July 12, 1870 (16 Stat. 235).
Provision making Presidential pardons inadmissible in evidence
in Court of Claims, prohibiting their use by that court in deciding
claims or appeals, and requiring dismissal of appeals by the Supreme
Court in cases where proof of loyalty had been made otherwise than as
prescribed by law, held an interference with judicial power under
Article III, Sec. 1, and with the pardoning power under Article II,
Sec. 2, clause 1.
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872).
Concurring: Chief Justice Chase, and Justices Nelson, Swayne, Davis,
Strong, Clifford, and Field.
Dissenting: Justices Miller, Bradley.
13. Act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. 1878, Sec. 4).
Provision authorizing federal courts, in suits for forfeitures
under revenue and custom laws, to require production of documents, with
allegations expected to be proved therein to be taken as proved on
failure to produce such documents, was held violative of the search and
seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment and the self-incrimination
clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
Concurring: Justices Bradley, Field, Harlan, Woods, Matthews, Gray,
and Blatchford.
Concurring specially: Justice Miller and Chief Justice Waite.
[[Page 2004]]
14. Revised Statutes 1977 (Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 144).
Provision that ``all persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to
make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . .
,'' held invalid under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1906), overruled in Jones v.
Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 441-43 (1968).
Concurring: Justices Brewer, Brown, Fuller, Peckham, McKenna,
Holmes, Moody, and Chief Justice White.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Day.
15. Revised Statutes 4937-4947 (Act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 210), and
Act of August 14, 1876 (19 Stat. 141).
Original trademark law, applying to marks ``for exclusive use
within the United States,'' and a penal act designed solely for the
protection of rights defined in the earlier measure, held not
supportable by Article I, Sec. 8, clause 8 (copyright clause), nor
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3, by reason of its application to intrastate
as well as interstate commerce.
Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879).
16. Revised Statutes 5132, subdivision 9 (Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat.
539).
Provision penalizing ``any person respecting whom bankruptcy
proceedings are commenced . . . who, within 3 months before the
commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, under the false color and
pretense of carrying on business and dealing in the ordinary course of
trade, obtains on credit from any person any goods or chattels with
intent to defraud . . . ,'' held a police regulation not within the
bankruptcy power (Article I, Sec. 4, clause 4).
United States v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670 (1878).
17. Revised Statutes 5507 (Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 141, 4).
Provision penalizing ``every person who prevents, hinders,
controls, or intimidates another from exercising . . . the right of
suffrage, to whom that right is guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, by means of bribery . . . ,''
held not authorized by the Fifteenth Amendment.
James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127 (1903).
Concurring: Justices Brewer, Fuller, Peckham, Holmes, and Day, and
Chief Justice White.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Brown.
18. Revised Statutes 5519 (Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13, Sec. 2).
Section providing punishment in case ``two or more persons in
any State . . . conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving . . . any
per
[[Page 2005]]
son . . . of the equal protection of the laws . . . or for the purpose
of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State
. . . from giving or securing to all persons within such State . . . the
equal protection of the laws . . . ,'' held invalid as not being
directed at state action proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).
Concurring: Justices Woods, Miller, Bradley, Gray, Field, Matthews,
and Blatchford, and Chief Justice White.
Dissenting: Justice Harlan.
In Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (1887), an attempt was made to
distinguish the Harris case and to apply the statute to a conspiracy
directed at aliens within a State, but the provision was held not
enforceable in such limited manner.
19. Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, Sec. 1064 (Act of June
17, 1870, 16 Stat. 154, Sec. 3).
Provision that ``prosecutions in the police court [of the
District of Columbia] shall be by information under oath, without
indictment by grand jury or trial by petit jury,'' as applied to
punishment for conspiracy, held to contravene Article III, Sec. 2,
clause 3, requiring jury trial of all crimes.
Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888).
20. Act of March 1, 1875 (18 Stat. 336, Sec. Sec. 1, 2).
Provision ``That all persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the
accommodations . . . of inns, public conveyances on land or water,
theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the
conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to
citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition
of servitude''--subject to penalty, held not to be supported by the
Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments.
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), as to operation within
States.
Concurring: Justices Bradley, Miller, Field, Woods, Matthews, Gray,
and Blatchford, and Chief Justice Waite.
Dissenting: Justice Harlan.
21. Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 479, Sec. 2).
Provision that ``if the party [i.e., a person stealing property
from the United States] has been convicted, then the judgment against
him shall be conclusive evidence in the prosecution against [the]
receiver that the property of the United States therein described has
been embezzled, stolen, or purloined,'' held to contravene the Sixth
Amendment.
Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47 (1899).
Concurring: Justices Harlan, Gray, Shiras, White and Peckham, and
Chief Justice Fuller.
[[Page 2006]]
Dissenting: Justices Brown and McKenna.
22. Act of July 12, 1876 (19 Stat. 80, Sec. 6, in part).
Provision that ``postmasters of the first, second, and third
classes . . . may be removed by the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate,'' held to infringe the executive power under
Article II, Sec. 1, clause 1.
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).
Concurring: Chief Justice Taft, and Justices Van Devanter,
Sutherland, Butler, Sanford, and Stone.
Dissenting: Justices Holmes, McReynolds and Brandeis.
23. Act of August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 411).
Directive, in a provision for the purchase or condemnation of a
certain lock and dam in the Monongahela River, that ``. . . in
estimating the sum to be paid by the United States, the franchise of
said corporation to collect tolls shall not be considered or estimated
. . . ,'' held to contravene the Fifth Amendment.
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893).
24. Act of May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. 25, Sec. 4).
Provision of a Chinese exclusion act, that Chinese persons
``convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in
the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor for a period not
exceeding 1 year and thereafter removed from the United States . . .
(such conviction and judgment being had before a justice, judge, or
commissioner upon a summary hearing), held to contravene the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments.
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896).
Concurring: Justices Shiras, Harlan, Gray, Brown, White, and
Peckham, and Chief Justice Fuller.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justice Field.
25. Joint Resolution of August 4, 1894 (28 Stat. 1018, No. 41).
Provision authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to approve a
second lease of certain land by an Indian chief in Minnesota (granted to
lessor's ancestor by art. 9 of a treaty with the Chippewa Indians), held
an interference with judicial interpretation of treaties under Article
III, Sec. 2, clause 1 (and repugnant to the Fifth Amendment).
Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899).
26. Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 553-60, Sec. Sec. 27-37).
Income tax provisions of the tariff act of 1894. ``The tax
imposed by Sec. Sec. 27 and 37, inclusive . . . so far as it falls on
the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax
within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore, unconstitutional
and void because not apportioned according to representation [Article I,
Sec. 2, clause 3],
[[Page 2007]]
all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are
necessarily invalid'' (158 U.S. 601, 637).
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and
rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
Concurring: Chief Justice Fuller, and Justices Gray, Brewer, Brown,
Shiras, Jackson.
Concurring specially: Justice Field.
Dissenting: Justices White and Harlan.
27. Act of January 30, 1897, (29 Stat. 506).
Prohibition on sale of liquor ``. . . to any Indian to whom
allotment of land has been made while the title to the same shall be
held in trust by the Government. . . ,'' held a police regulation
infringing state powers, and not warranted by the commerce clause,
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3.
Matter of Heff, 197 U.S. 488 (1905), overruled in United States v.
Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916).
Concurring: Justices Brewer, Brown, White, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes,
and Day, and Chief Justice Fuller.
Dissenting: Justice Harlan.
28. Act of June 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 428).
Section 10, penalizing ``any employer subject to the provisions
of this act'' who should ``threaten any employee with loss of employment
. . . because of his membership in . . . a labor corporation,
association, or organization'' (the act being applicable ``to any common
carrier . . . engaged in the transportation of passengers or property
. . . from one State . . . to another State . . . ,'' etc.), held an
infringement of the Fifth Amendment and not supported by the commerce
clause.
Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908).
Concurring: Justices Harlan, Brewer, White, Peckham, and Day, and
Chief Justice Fuller.
Dissenting: Justices McKenna and Holmes.
29. Act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 448, 459).
Stamp tax on foreign bills of lading, held a tax on exports in
violation of Article I, Sec. 9.
Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283 (1901).
Concurring: Justices Brewer, Brown, Shiras, Peckham, and Chief
Justice Fuller.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Gray, White, and McKenna.
30. Same (30 Stat. 448, 460).
Tax on charter parties, as applied to shipments exclusively from
ports in United States to foreign ports, held a tax on exports in
violation of Article I, Sec. 9.
United States v. Hvoslef, 237 U.S. 1 (1915).
[[Page 2008]]
31. Same (30 Stat. 448, 461).
Stamp tax on policies of marine insurance on exports, held a tax
on exports in violation of Article I, Sec. 9.
Thames & Mersey Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 237 U.S. 19
(1915).
32. Act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 359, Sec. 171).
Section of the Alaska Code providing for a six-person jury in
trials for misdemeanors, held repugnant to the Sixth Amendment,
requiring ``jury'' trial of crimes.
Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905).
Concurring: Justices White, Brewer, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, and
Day, and Chief Justice Fuller.
Concurring specially: Justices Harlan and Brown.
33. Act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1341, Sec. 935).
Section of the District of Columbia Code granting the same right
of appeal, in criminal cases, to the United States or the District of
Columbia as to the defendant, but providing that a verdict was not to be
set aside for error found in rulings during trial, held an attempt to
take an advisory opinion, contrary to Article III, Sec. 2.
United States v. Evans, 213 U.S. 297 (1909).
34. Act of June 11, 1906 (34 Stat. 232).
Act providing that ``every common carrier engaged in trade or
commerce in the District of Columbia . . . or between the several States
. . . shall be liable to any of its employees . . . for all damages
which may result from the negligence of any of its officers . . . or by
reason of any defect . . . due to its negligence in its cars, engines
. . . roadbed,'' etc., held not supportable under Article I, Sec. 8,
clause 3 because it extended to intrastate as well as interstate
commercial activities.
The Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U.S. 463 (1908). (The act was
upheld as to the District of Columbia in Hyde v. Southern Ry., 31 App.
D.C. 466 (1908); and as to the Territories, in El Paso & N.E. Ry. v.
Gutierrez, 215 U.S. 87 (1909).)
Concurring: Justices White and Day.
Concurring specially: Justices Peckham and Brewer and Chief Justice
Fuller.
Dissenting: Justices Moody, Harlan, McKenna, and Holmes.
35. Act of June 16, 1906 (34 Stat. 269, Sec. 2).
Provision of Oklahoma Enabling Act restricting relocation of the
State capital prior to 1913, held not supportable by Article IV, Sec. 3,
authorizing admission of new States.
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911).
Concurring: Justices Lurton, White, Harlan, Day, Hughes, Van
Devanter, and Lamar.
Dissenting: Justices McKenna and Holmes.
[[Page 2009]]
36. Act of February 20, 1907 (34 Stat. 889, Sec. 3).
Provision in the Immigration Act of 1907 penalizing ``whoever
. . . shall keep, maintain, control, support, or harbor in any house or
other place, for the purpose of prostitution . . . any alien woman or
girl, within 3 years after she shall have entered the United States,''
held an exercise of police power not within the control of Congress over
immigration (whether drawn from the commerce clause or based on inherent
sovereignty).
Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909).
Concurring: Justices Brewer, White, Peckham, McKenna, and Day, and
Chief Justice Fuller.
Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Harlan, and Moody.
37. Act of March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. 1028).
Provisions authorizing certain Indians ``to institute their
suits in the Court of Claims to determine the validity of any acts of
Congress passed since . . . 1902, insofar as said acts . . . attempt to
increase or extend the restrictions upon alienation . . . of allotments
of lands of Cherokee citizens . . . ,'' and giving a right of appeal to
the Supreme Court, held an attempt to enlarge the judicial power
restricted by Article III, Sec. 2, to cases and controversies.
Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).
38. Act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 313, Sec. 4).
Provision making locally taxable ``all land [of Indians of the
Five Civilized Tribes] from which restrictions have been or shall be
removed,'' held a violation of the Fifth Amendment, in view of the Atoka
Agreement, embodied in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, providing tax-
exemption for allotted lands while title in original allottee, not
exceeding 21 years.
Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912).
39. Act of February 9, 1909, Sec. 2, 35 Stat. 614, as amended.
Provision of Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act creating a
presumption that possessor of cocaine knew of its illegal importation
into the United States held, in light of the fact that more cocaine is
produced domestically than is brought into the country and in absence of
any showing that defendant could have known his cocaine was imported, if
it was, inapplicable to support conviction from mere possession of
cocaine.
Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970).
Concurring specially: Justices Black and Douglas.
40. Act of August 19, 1911 (37 Stat. 28).
A proviso in Sec. 8 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act fixing
a maximum authorized expenditure by a candidate for Senator ``in any
[[Page 2010]]
campaign for his nomination and election,'' as applied to a primary
election, held not supported by Article I, Sec. 4, giving Congress power
to regulate the manner of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives.
Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921), overruled in United
States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).
Concurring: Justices McReynolds, McKenna, Holmes, Day, and Van
Devanter.
Concurring specially: Justices Pitney, Brandeis, and Clarke.
Dissenting: Chief Justice White (concurring in part).
41. Act of June 18, 1912 (37 Stat. 136, Sec. 8).
Part of Sec. 8 giving Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia
(proceeding upon information) concurrent jurisdiction of desertion cases
(which were, by law, punishable by fine or imprisonment in the workhouse
at hard labor for 1 year), held invalid under the Fifth Amendment, which
gives right to presentment by a grand jury in case of infamous crimes.
United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922).
Concurring: Justices McKenna, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, and
McReynolds.
Dissenting: Justices Brandeis, Holmes, and Chief Justice Taft.
42. Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 988, part of par. 64).
Provision of the District of Columbia Public Utility Commission
Act authorizing appeal to the United States Supreme Court from decrees
of the District of Columbia Court Appeals modifying valuation decisions
of the Utilities Commission, held an attempt to extend the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to cases not strictly judicial within
the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2.
Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923).
43. Act of September 1, 1916 (39 Stat. 675).
The original Child Labor Law, providing ``that no producer . . .
shall ship . . . in interstate commerce . . . any article or commodity
the product of any mill . . . in which within 30 days prior to the
removal of such product therefrom children under the age of 14 years
have been employed or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any day or
more than 6 days in any week . . . ,'' held not within the commerce
power of Congress.
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).
Concurring: Justices Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, and McReynolds, and
Chief Justice White.
Dissenting: Justices Holmes, McKenna, Brandeis, and Clarke.
44. Act of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 757, Sec. 2(a), in part).
Provision of the income tax law of 1916, that a ``stock dividend
shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value,'' held
invalid (in spite of the Sixteenth Amendment) as an attempt to tax
[[Page 2011]]
something not actually income, without regard to apportionment under
Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3.
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).
Concurring: Justices Pitney, McKenna, Van Devanter, and McReynolds,
and Chief Justice White.
Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Day, Brandeis, Clarke.
45. Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 395).
The amendment of Sec. Sec. 24 and 256 of the Judicial Code
(which prescribe jurisdiction of district courts) ``saving . . . to
claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen's compensation law
of any State,'' held an attempt to transfer federal legislative powers
to the States--the Constitution, by Article III, Sec. 2, and Article I,
Sec. 8, having adopted rules of general maritime law.
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149 (1920).
Concurring: Justices McReynolds, McKenna, Day and Van Devanter, and
Chief Justice White.
Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Pitney, Brandeis, and Clarke.
46. Act of September 19, 1918 (40 Stat. 960).
That part of the Minimum Wage Law of the District of Columbia
which authorized the Wage Board ``to ascertain and declare . . . (a)
Standards of minimum wages for women in any occupation within the
District of Columbia, and what wages are inadequate to supply the
necessary cost of living to any such women workers to maintain them in
good health and to protect their morals . . . ,'' held to interfere with
freedom of contract under the Fifth Amendment.
Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), overruled in
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
Concurring: Justices Sutherland, McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds,
and Butler.
Dissenting: Chief Justice Taft, and Justices Sanford, and Holmes.
47. Act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1065, Sec. 213, in part).
That part of Sec. 213 of the of Revenue Act of 1919 which
provided that ``. . . for the purposes of the title . . . the term
`gross income' . . . includes gains, profits, and income derived from
salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service (including in the
case of . . . judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United
States . . . the compensation received as such) . . .'' as applied to a
judge in office when the act was passed, held a violation of the
guaranty of judges' salaries, in Article III, Sec. 1.
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925), held it invalid as applied to
a judge taking office subsequent to the date of the act. Both cases were
overruled by O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
Concurring: Justices Van Devanter, McKenna, Day, Pitney, McReynolds,
and Clarke, and Chief Justice White.
[[Page 2012]]
Dissenting: Justices Holmes and Brandeis.
48. Act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1097, Sec. 402(c)).
That part of the estate tax law providing that the ``gross
estate'' of a decedent should include value of all property ``to the
extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time
made a transfer or with respect to which he had at any time created a
trust, in comtemplation of or intended to take effect in possession or
enjoyment at or after his death (whether such transfer or trust is made
or created before or after the passage of this act), except in case of a
bona fide sale . . .'' as applied to a transfer of property made prior
to the act and intended to take effect ``in possession or enjoyment'' at
death of grantor, but not in fact testamentary or designed to evade
taxation, held confiscatory, contrary to Fifth Amendment.
Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927).
Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and
Butler, and Chief Justice Taft.
Concurring specially (only in the result): Justices Holmes,
Brandeis, Sanford, and Stone.
49. Act of February 24, 1919, title XII (40 Stat. 1138, entire title).
The Child Labor Tax Act, providing that ``every person . . .
operating . . . any . . . factory . . . in which children under the age
of 14 years have been employed or permitted to work . . . shall pay
. . . in addition to all other taxes imposed by law, an excise tax
equivalent to 10 percent of the entire net profits received . . . for
such year from the sale . . . of the product of such . . . factory
. . .,'' held beyond the taxing power under Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1,
and an infringement of state authority.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (Child Labor Tax Case), 259 U.S. 20
(1922).
Concurring: Chief Justice Taft, and Justices McKenna, Holmes, Day,
Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, and Brandeis.
Dissenting: Justice Clarke.
50. Act of October 22, 1919 (41 Stat. 298, Sec. 2), amending Act of
August 10, 1917 (40 Stat. 277, Sec. 4).
(a) Sec. 4 of the Lever Act, providing in part ``that it is
hereby made unlawful for any person willfully . . . to make any unjust
or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any
necessaries . . . and fixing a penalty, held invalid to support an
indictment for charging an unreasonable price on sale--as not setting up
an ascertainable standard of guilt within the requirement of the Sixth
Amendment.
United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921).
Concurring: Chief Justice White, and Justices McKenna, Holmes, Van
Devanter, McReynolds, and Clarke.
Concurring specially: Justices Pitney and Brandeis.
[[Page 2013]]
(b) That provision of Sec. 4 making it unlawful ``to conspire,
combine, agree, or arrange with any other person to . . . exact
excessive prices for any necessaries'' and fixing a penalty, held
invalid to support an indictment, on the reasoning of the Cohen Grocery
case.
Weeds, Inc. v. United States, 255 U.S. 109 (1921).
Concurring: Chief Justice White, and Justices McKenna, Holmes, Van
Devanter, McReynolds, and Clarke.
Concurring specially: Justices Pitney and Brandeis.
51. Act of August 24, 1921 (42 Stat. 187, Future Trading Act).
(a) Sec. 4 (and interwoven regulations) providing a ``tax of 20
cents a bushel on every bushel involved therein, upon each contract of
sale of grain for future delivery, except . . . where such contracts are
made by or through a member of a board of trade which has been
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as a `contract market'
. . .,'' held not within the taxing power under Article I, Sec. 8.
Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922).
(b) Sec. 3, providing ``That in addition to the taxes now
imposed by law there is hereby levied a tax amounting to 20 cents per
bushel on each bushel involved therein, whether the actual commodity is
intended to be delivered or only nominally referred to, upon each . . .
option for a contract either of purchase or sale of grain . . . ,'' held
invalid on the same reasoning.
Trusler v. Crooks, 269 U.S. 475 (1926).
52. Act of November 23, 1921 (42 Stat. 261, 245, in part).
Provision of Revenue Act of 1921 abating the deduction (4
percent of mean reserves) allowed from taxable income of life insurance
companies in general by the amount of interest on their tax-exempts, and
so according no relative advantage to the owners of the tax-exempt
securities, held to destroy a guaranteed exemption.
National Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 508 (1928).
Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler,
and Sanford, and Chief Justice Taft.
Dissenting: Justices Brandeis, Holmes, and Stone.
53. Act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 634).
A second attempt to amend Sec. Sec. 24 and 256 of the Judicial
Code, relating to jurisdiction of district courts, by saving ``to
claimants for compensation for injuries to or death of persons other
than the master or members of the crew of a vessel, their rights and
remedies under the workmen's compensation law of any State . . .'' held
invalid on authority of Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart.
Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219 (1924).
Concurring: Justices McReynolds, McKenna, Holmes, Van Devanter,
Sutherland, Butler, and Sanford, and Chief Justice Taft.
[[Page 2014]]
Dissenting: Justice Brandeis.
54. Act of June 2, 1924 (43 Stat. 313).
The gift tax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1924, applicable
to gifts made during the calendar year, were held invalid under the
Fifth Amendment insofar as they applied to gifts made before passage of
the act.
Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440 (1928).
Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Sanford, Van Devanter, Sutherland,
and Butler, and Chief Justice Taft.
Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Brandeis, and Stone.
55. Act of February 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 70, Sec. 302, in part).
Stipulation creating a conclusive presumption that gifts made
within two years prior to the death of the donor were made in
contemplation of death of donor and requiring the value thereof to be
included in computing the death transfer tax on decedent's estate was
held to effect an invalid deprivation of property without due process.
Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932).
Concurring: Justices Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler,
and Roberts, and Chief Justice Hughes.
Dissenting: Justices Stone and Brandeis.
56. Act of February 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 95, Sec. 701).
Provision imposing a special excise tax of $1,000 on liquor
dealers operating in States where such business is illegal, was held a
penalty, without constitutional support following repeal of the
Eighteenth Amendment.
United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935).
Concurring: Justices Roberts, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland,
and Butler, and Chief Justice Hughes.
Dissenting: Justices Cardozo, Brandeis, and Stone.
57. Act of March 20, 1933 (48 Stat. 11, Sec. 17, in part).
Clause in the Economy Act of 1933 providing ``. . . all laws
granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term war risk insurance are
hereby repealed,'' held invalid to abrogate an outstanding contract of
insurance, which is a vested right protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934).
58. Act of May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 31).
Agricultural Adjustment Act providing for processing taxes on
agricultural commodities and benefit payments therefore to farmers, held
not within the taxing power under Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1.
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).
Concurring: Justices Roberts, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland,
and Butler, and Chief Justice Hughes.
[[Page 2015]]
Dissenting: Justices Stone, Brandeis, and Cardozo.
59. Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933 (48 Stat. 113, Sec. 1).
Abrogation of gold clause in Government obligations, held a
repudiation of the pledge implicit in the power to borrow money (Article
I, Sec. 8, clause 2), and within the prohibition of the Fourteenth
Amendment, against questioning the validity of the public debt. (The
majority of the Court, however, held plaintiff not entitled to recover
under the circumstances.)
Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935).
Concurring: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Brandeis, Roberts,
and Cardozo.
Concurring specially: Justice Stone.
Dissenting: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and
Butler.
60. Act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 195, the National Industrial Recovery
Act).
(a) Title I, except Sec. 9.
Provisions relating to codes of fair competition, authorized to
be approved by the President in his discretion ``to effectuate the
policy'' of the act, held invalid as a delegation of legislative power
(Article I, Sec. 1) and not within the commerce power (Article I,
Sec. 8, clause 3).
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
Concurring: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Van Devanter,
McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, and Roberts.
Concurring specially: Justices Cardozo and Stone.
(b) Sec. 9(c).
Clause of the oil regulation section authorizing the President
``to prohibit the transportation in interstate . . . commerce of
petroleum . . . produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the
amount permitted . . . by any State law . . .'' and prescribing a
penalty for violation of orders issued thereunder, held invalid as a
delegation of legislative power.
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
Concurring: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Van Devanter,
McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Stone, and Roberts.
Dissenting: Justice Cardozo.
61. Act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 307, Sec. 13).
Temporary reduction of 15 percent in retired pay of judges,
retired from service but subject to performance of judicial duties under
the Act of March 1, 1929 (45 Stat. 1422), was held a violation of the
guaranty of judges' salaries in Article III, Sec. 1.
Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339 (1934).
[[Page 2016]]
62. Act of April 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 646 Sec. 6), amending Sec. 5(i) of
Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933.
Provision for conversion of state building and loan associations
into federal associations, upon vote of 51 percent of the votes cast at
a meeting of stockholders called to consider such action, held an
encroachment on reserved powers of State.
Hopkins Savings Ass'n v. Cleary, 296 U.S. 315 (1935).
63. Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 798).
Provision for readjustment of municipal indebtedness, though
``adequately related'' to the bankruptcy power, was held invalid as an
interference with state sovereignty.
Ashton v. Cameron County Dist., 298 U.S. 513 (1936).
Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler,
and Roberts.
Dissenting: Justices Cardozo, Brandeis, and Stone, and Chief Justice
Hughes.
64. Act of June 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 1283).
The Railroad Retirement Act, establishing a detailed compulsory
retirement system for employees of carriers subject to the Interstate
Commerce Act, held, not a regulation of commerce within the meaning of
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3, and violative of the due process clause
(Fifth Amendment).
Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Alton Ry., 295 U.S. 330 (1935).
Concurring: Justices Roberts, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland,
and Butler.
Dissenting: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Brandeis, Stone, and
Cardozo.
65. Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1289, ch. 869).
The Frazier-Lemke Act, adding subsection (s) to Sec. 75 of the
Bankruptcy Act, designed to preserve to mortgagors the ownership and
enjoyment of their farm property and providing specifically, in
paragraph 7, that a bankrupt left in possession has the option at any
time within 5 years of buying at the appraised value--subject meanwhile
to no monetary obligation other than payment of reasonable rental, held
a violation of property rights, under the Fifth Amendment.
Louisville Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935).
66. Act of August 24, 1935 (48 Stat. 750).
Amendments of Agricultural Adjustment Act held not within the
taxing power, the amendments not having cured the defects of the
original act held unconstitutional in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S.
1 (1936).
Rickert Rice Mills v. Fontenot, 297 U.S. 110 (1936).
[[Page 2017]]
67. Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 991).
Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, held to impose, not a
tax within Article I, Sec. 8, but a penalty not sustained by the
commerce clause (Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3).
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).
Concurring: Justices Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler,
and Roberts.
Concurring specially: Chief Justice Hughes.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Cardozo,
Brandeis, and Stone.
68. Act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040).
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, Sec. 301(f),
prohibiting the refusal to permit entry or inspection of premises by
federal officers held void for vagueness and as violative of the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
United States v. Cardiff, 344 U.S. 174 (1952).
Concurring: Justices Douglas, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson,
Clark, and Minton, and Chief Justice Vinson.
Dissenting: Justice Burton.
69. Act of June 30, 1938 (52 Stat. 1251).
Federal Firearms Act, Sec. 2(f), establishing a presumption of
guilt based on a prior conviction and present possession of a firearm,
held to violate the test of due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 (1943).
Concurring: Justices Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, and
Rutledge, and Chief Justice Stone.
Concurring specially: Justices Black and Douglas.
70. Act of August 10, 1939 (Sec. 201(d), 53 Stat. 1362, as amended, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 402(g)).
Provision of Social Security Act that grants survivors' benefits
based on the earnings of a deceased husband and father covered by the
Act to his widow and to the couple's children in her care but that
grants benefits based on the earnings of a covered deceased wife and
mother only to the minor children and not to the widower held violative
of the right to equal protection secured by the Fifth Amendment's due
process clause, since it unjustifiably discriminates against female wage
earners required to pay social security taxes by affording them less
protection for their survivors than is provided for male wage earners.
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975).
71. Act of October 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1169 Sec. 401(g)); as amended by
Act of January 20, 1944 (58 Stat. 4, Sec. 1).
Provision of Aliens and Nationality Code (8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1481(a)(8)), derived from the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended,
that citizen
[[Page 2018]]
ship shall be lost upon conviction by court martial and dishonorable
discharge for deserting the armed services in time of war, held invalid
as imposing a cruel and unusual punishment barred by the Eighth
Amendment and not authorized by the war powers conferred by Article I,
Sec. 8, clauses 11 to 14.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
Concurring: Chief Justice Warren and Justice Whittaker.
Concurring specially: Justices Black, Douglas, and Brennan.
Dissenting: Justices Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, and Harlan.
72. Act of November 15, 1943 (57 Stat. 450).
Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943, Sec. 304, providing
that no salary should be paid to certain named federal employees out of
moneys appropriated, held to violate Article I, Sec. 9, clause 3,
forbidding enactment of bill of attainder or ex post facto law.
United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946).
Concurring: Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge, and Burton,
and Chief Justice Stone.
Concurring specially: Justices Frankfurter and Reed.
73. Act of September 27, 1944 (58 Stat. 746, Sec. 401(J)); and Act of
June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 267-268, Sec. 349(a)(10)).
Sec. 401(J) of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940, added in
1944, and Sec. 49(a)(10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
depriving one of citizenship, without the procedural safeguards
guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, for the offense of leaving
or remaining outside the country, in time of war or national emergency,
to evade military service held invalid.
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).
Concurring: Justices Goldberg, Black, Douglas, and Chief Justice
Warren.
Concurring specially: Justice Brennan.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White.
74. Act of July 31, 1946 (ch. 707, Sec. 7, 60 Stat. 719).
District court decision holding invalid under First and Fifth
Amendments statute prohibiting parades or assemblages on United States
Capitol grounds is summarily affirmed.
Chief of Capitol Police v. Jeanette Rankin Brigade, 409 U.S. 972
(1972).
75. Act of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 760).
Provision of Lindberg Kidnapping Act which provided for the
imposition of the death penalty only if recommended by the jury held
unconstitutional inasmuch as it penalized the assertion of a defendant's
Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.
United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968).
Concurring: Justices Stewart, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Fortas, and
Chief Justice Warren.
[[Page 2019]]
Dissenting: Justices White and Black.
76. Act of August 18, 1949 (63 Stat. 617, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 13k).
Provision, insofar as it applies to the public sidewalks
surrounding the Supreme Court building, which bars the display of any
flag, banner, or device designed to bring into public notice any party,
organization, or movement, held violative of the free speech clause of
the First Amendment.
United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).
Concurring: Justices White, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist,
O'Connor, and Chief Justice Burger.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Marshall and
Stevens.
77. Act of May 5, 1950 (64 Stat. 107).
Article 3(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, subjecting
civilian ex-servicemen to court martial for crime committed while in
military service, held to violate Article III, Sec. 2, and the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments.
Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955).
Concurring: Justices Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and
Chief Justice Warren.
Dissenting: Justices Reed, Burton, and Minton.
78. Act of May 5, 1950 (64 Stat. 107).
Insofar as Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
subjects civilian dependents accompanying members of the armed forces
overseas in time of peace to trial, in capital cases, by court martial,
it is violative of Article III, Sec. 2, and the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
Concurring: Justices Black, Douglas, and Chief Justice Warren.
Concurring specifically: Justices Frankfurter and Harlan.
Dissenting: Justices Clark and Burton.
Insofar as the aforementioned provision is invoked in time of
peace for the trial of noncapital offenses committed on land bases
overseas by employees of the armed forces who have not been inducted or
who have not voluntarily enlised therein, it is violative of the Sixth
Amendment.
McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960).
Concurring: Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, and Brennan, and Chief
Justice Warren.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Frankfurter.
Concurring in Part and dissenting in Part: Justices Whittaker and
Stewart.
Insofar as the aforementioned provision is invoked in time of
peace for the trial of noncapital offenses committed by civilian
dependents accompanying members of the armed forces overseas, it is
violative of Article III, Sec. 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
[[Page 2020]]
Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960).
Concurring: Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, and Brennan, and Chief
Justice Warren.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Frankfurter.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Whittaker and
Stewart.
Insofar as the aforementioned provision is invoked in time of
peace for the trial of a capital offense committed by a civilian
employee of the armed forces overseas, it is violative of Article III,
Sec. 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960).
Concurring: Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, and Brennan, and Chief
Justice Warren.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Frankfurter.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Whittaker and
Stewart.
79. Act of August 16, 1950 (64 Stat. 451, as amended).
Statutory scheme authorizing the Postmaster General to close the
mails to distributors of obscene materials held unconstitutional in the
absence of procedural provisions to assure prompt judicial determination
that protected materials were not being restrained.
Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971).
80. Act of August 28, 1950 (Sec. 202(c)(1)(D), 64 Stat. 483, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 402(c)(1)(C)).
District court decision holding invalid as a violation of the
equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause a
Social Security provision entitling a husband to insurance benefits
through his wife's benefits, provided he received at least one-half of
his support from her at the time she became entitled, but requiring no
such showing of support for the wife to qualify for benefits through her
husband, is summarily affirmed.
Califano v. Silbowitz, 430 U.S. 934 (1977).
81. Act of August 28, 1950 (Sec. 202(f)(1)(E), 64 Stat. 485, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 402(f)(1)(D)).
Social Security Act provision awarding survivor's benefits based
on earnings of a deceased wife to widower only if he was receiving at
least half of his support from her at the time of her death, whereas
widow receives benefits regardless of dependency, held violative of
equal protection element of Fifth Amendment's due process clause because
of its impermissible sex classification.
Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977).
Concurring: Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Powell.
Concurring specially: Justice Stevens.
Dissenting: Justices Rehnquist, Stewart, Blackmun, and Chief Justice
Burger.
[[Page 2021]]
82. Act of September 23, 1950 (Title I, Sec. 5, 64 Stat. 992).
Provision of Subversive Activities Control Act making it
unlawful for member of Communist front organization to work in a defense
plant held to be an overbroad infringement of the right of association
protected by the First Amendment.
United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967).
Concurring: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas,
Stewart, and Fortas.
Concurring specially: Justice Brennan.
Dissenting: Justices White and Harlan.
83. Act of September 23, 1950 (64 Stat. 993, Sec. 6).
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, Sec. 6, providing
that any member of a Communist organization, which has registered or has
been ordered to register, commits a crime if he attempts to obtain or
use a passport, held violative of due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964).
Concurring: Justices Goldberg, Brennan, and Stewart, and Chief
Justice Warren.
Concurring specially: Justices Black and Douglas.
Dissenting: Justices Clark, Harlan, and White.
84. Act of September 28, 1950 (Title I, Sec. Sec. 7, 8, 64 Stat. 993).
Provisions of Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
requiring in lieu of registration by the Communist Party registration by
Party members may not be applied to compel registration by, or to
prosecute for refusal to register, alleged members who have asserted
their privilege against self-incrimination, inasmuch as registration
would expose such persons to criminal prosecution under other laws.
Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70
(1965).
85. Act of October 30, 1951 Sec. 5(f)(ii), 65 Stat. 683, 45 U.S.C.
Sec. 231a(c)(3)(ii)).
Provision of Railroad Retirement Act similar to section voided
in Goldfarb (no. 81, supra).
Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Kalina, 431 U.S. 909 (1977).
86. Act of June 27, 1952 (Title III, 349, 66 Stat. 267).
Provision of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 providing
for revocation of United States citizenship of one who votes in a
foreign election held unconstitutional under Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Concurring: Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas, and Chief
Justice Warren.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White.
87. Act of June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 269, Sec. 352(a)(1)).
Sec. 352(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,
depriving a naturalized person of citizenship for ``having a continuous
[[Page 2022]]
residence for three years'' in state of his birth or prior nationality,
held violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).
Concurring: Justices Douglas, Black, Stewart, and Goldberg, and
Chief Justice Warren.
Dissenting: Justices Clark, Harlan, and White.
88. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 525, Int. Rev. Code of 1954,
Sec. Sec. 4401-4423).
Provisions of tax laws requiring gamblers to pay occupational
and excise taxes may not be used over an assertion of one's privilege
against self-incrimination either to compel extensive reporting of
activities, leaving the registrant subject to prosecution under the laws
of all the States with the possible exception of Nevada, or to prosecute
for failure to register and report, because the scheme abridged the
Fifth Amendment privilege.
Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United
States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968).
Concurring: Justices Harlan, Black, Douglas, White, and Fortas.
Concurring specially: Justices Brennan and Stewart.
Dissenting: Chief Justice Warren.
89. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 560, Marijuana Tax Act,
Sec. Sec. 4741, 4744, 4751, 4753).
Provisions of tax laws requiring possessors of marijuana to
register and to pay a transfer tax may not be used over an assertion of
the privilege against self-incrimination to compel registration or to
prosecute for failure to register.
Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969).
Concurring specially: Chief Justice Warren and Justice Stewart.
90. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 728, Int. Rev. Code of 1954,
Sec. Sec. 5841, 5851).
Provisions of tax laws requiring the possessor of certain
firearms, which it is made illegal to receive or to possess, to register
with the Treasury Department may not be used over an assertion of the
privilege against self-incrimination to prosecute one for failure to
register or for possession of an unregistered firearm since the
statutory scheme abridges the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).
Concurring: Justices Harlan, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart,
White, and Fortas.
Dissenting: Chief Justice Warren.
91. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 867, Int. Rev. Code of 1954,
Sec. 7302).
Provision of tax laws providing for forfeiture of property used
in violating internal revenue laws may not be constitutionally used in
face of invocation of privilege against self-incrimination to condemn
money in possession of gambler who had failed to comply with the
[[Page 2023]]
registration and reporting scheme held void in Marchetti v. United
States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).
United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971).
Concurring: Justices Harlan, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall.
Dissenting: Justices White, Stewart, Blackmun, and Chief Justice
Burger.
92. Act of July 18, 1956 (Sec. 106, Stat. 570).
Provision of Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act creating a
presumption that possessor of marijuana knew of its illegal importation
into the United States held, in absence of showing that all marijuana in
United States was of foreign origin and that domestic users could know
that their marijuana was more likely than not of foreign origin,
unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969).
Concurring specially: Justice Black.
93. Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 65, Uniform Code of Military
Justice, Articles 80, 130, 134).
Servicemen may not be charged under the Act and tried in
military courts because of the commission of non-service connected
crimes committed off-post and off-duty which are subject to civilian
court jurisdiction where the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are
applicable.
O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969), overruled in Solorio v.
United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987).
Concurring: Justices Douglas, Black Brennan, Fortas, and Marshall,
and Chief Justice Warren.
Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White.
94. Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 35, Sec. 772(f)).
Proviso of statute permitting the wearing of United States
military apparel in theatrical productions only if the portrayal does
not tend to discredit the armed force imposes an unconstitutional
restraint upon First Amendment freedoms and precludes a prosecution
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 702 for unauthorized wearing of uniform in a street
skit disrespectful of the military.
Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970).
95. Act of September 2, 1958 (Sec. 5601(b)(1), 72 Stat. 1399).
Provision of Internal Revenue Code creating a presumption that
one's presence at the site of an unregistered still shall be sufficient
for conviction under a statute punishing possession, custody, or control
of an unregistered still unless defendant otherwise explained his
presence at the site to the jury held unconstitutional because the
presumption is not a legitimate, rational, or reasonable inference that
defendant was engaged in one of the specialized functions proscribed by
the statute.
United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136 (1965).
[[Page 2024]]
96. Act of September 2, 1958 (Sec. 1(25)(B), 72 Stat. 1446), and Act of
September 7, 1962 (Sec. 401, 76 Stat. 469).
Federal statutes providing that spouses of female members of the
Armed Forces must be dependent in fact in order to qualify for certain
dependent's benefits, whereas spouses of male members are statutorily
deemed dependent and automatically qualified for allowances, whatever
their actual status, held an invalid sex classification under the equal
protection principles of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
Concurring: Justices Brennan, Douglas, White, and Marshall.
Concurring specially: Justices Powell and Blackmun and Chief Justice
Burger; Justice Stewart.
Dissenting: Justice Rehnquist.
97. Act of September 14, 1959 (Sec. 504, 73 Stat. 536).
Provision of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959 making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as
an officer or, with the exception of clerical or custodial positions, as
an employee of a labor union held to be a bill of attainder and
unconstitutional.
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Concurring: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas,
Brennan, and Goldberg.
Dissenting: Justices White, Clark, Harlan, and Stewart.
98. Act of October 11, 1962 (Sec. 305, 76 Stat. 840).
Provision of Postal Services and Federal Employees Salary Act of
1962 authorizing Post Office Department to detain material determined to
be ``communist political propaganda'' and to forward it to the addressee
only if he requested it after notification by the Department, the
material to be destroyed otherwise, held to impose on the addressee an
affirmative obligation which amounted to an abridgment of First
Amendment rights.
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).
99. Act of October 15, 1962 (76 Stat. 914).
Provision of District of Columbia laws requiring that a person
to be eligible to receive welfare assistance must have resided in the
District for at least one year impermissibly classified persons on the
basis of an assertion of the right to travel interstate and therefore
held to violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
Concurring: Justices Brennan, Douglas, Stewart, White, Fortas, and
Marshall.
Dissenting: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black and Harlan.
100. Act of December 16, 1963 (77 Stat. 378, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 754).
Provision of Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 which in
effect removed restriction against religious use of facilities
constructed
[[Page 2025]]
with federal funds after 20 years held to violate the establishment
clause of the First Amendment inasmuch as the property will still be of
considerable value at the end of the period and removal of the
restriction would constitute a substantial governmental contribution to
religion.
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).
101. Act of July 30, 1965 (Sec. 339, 79 Stat. 409).
Section of Social Security Act qualifying certain illegitimate
children for disability insurance benefits by presuming dependence but
disqualifying other illegitimate children, regardless of dependency, if
the disabled wage earner parent did not contribute to the child's
support before the onset of the disability or if the child did not live
with the parent before the onset of disability, held to deny latter
class of children equal protection as guaranteed by the due process
clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Jiminez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974).
Concurring: Chief Justice Burger and Justices Douglas, Brennan,
Stewart White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell.
Dissenting: Justice Rehnquist.
102. Act of September 3, 1966 (Sec. 102(b), 80 Stat. 831), and Act of
April 8, 1974 (Sec. Sec. 6(a)(1) amending Sec. 3(d) of Act,
6(a)(2) amending 3 (e)(2)(C), 6(a)(5) amending Sec. 3(s)(5), and
6(a)(6) amending Sec. 3(x)).
Those section of the Fair Labor Standards Act extending wage and
hour coverage to the employees of state and local governments held
invalid because Congress lacks the authority under the commerce clause
to regulate employee activities in areas of traditional governmental
functions of the States.
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976).
Concurring: Justices Rehnquist, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, and Chief
Justice Burger.
Dissenting: Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall; Justice Stevens.
103. Act of January 2, 1968 (Sec. 163(a)(2), 81 Stat. 872).
District court decisions holding unconstitutional under Fifth
Amendment's due process clause section of Social Security Act that
reduced, perhaps to zero, benefits coming to illegitimate children upon
death of parent in order to satisfy the maximum payment due the wife and
legitimate children are summarily affirmed.
Richardson v. Davis, 409 U.S. 1069 (1972).
104. Act of January 2, 1968 (Sec. 203, 81 Stat. 882).
Provision of Social Security Act extending benefits to families
whose dependent children have been deprived of parental support because
of the unemployment of the father but not giving benefits when the
mother becomes unemployed held to impermissibly classify on the basis of
sex and violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
[[Page 2026]]
Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979).
105. Act of June 22, 1970 (ch. III, 84 Stat. 318).
Provision of Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 which set a
minimum voting age qualification of 18 in state and local elections held
to be unconstitutional because beyond the powers of Congress to
legislate.
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).
Concurring: Justices Harlan, Stewart, Blackmun, and Chief Justice
Burger.
Concurring specially: Justice Black.
Dissenting: Justices Douglas, Brennan, White, and Marshall.
106. Act of December 29, 1970 (Sec. 8(a), 84 Stat. 1598, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 637(a)).
Provision of Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizing
inspections of covered work places in industry without warrants held to
violate Fourth Amendment.
Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978).
Concurring: Justices White, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, and Chief
Justice Burger.
Dissenting: Justices Stevens, Blackmun, and Rehnquist.
107. Act of January 11, 1971, (Sec. 2, 84 Stat. 2048).
Provision of Food Stamp Act disqualifying from participation in
program any household containing an individual unrelated by birth,
marriage, or adoption to any other member of the household violates the
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973).
Concurring: Justices Brennan, Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall,
Blackmun, and Powell.
Dissenting: Justice Rehnquist and Chief Justice Burger.
108. Act of January 11, 1971 (Sec. 4, 84 Stat. 2049).
Provision of Food Stamp Act disqualifying from participation in
program any household containing a person 18 years or older who had been
claimed as a dependent child for income tax purposes in the present or
preceding tax year by a taxpayer not a member of the household violates
the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Department of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973).
Concurring: Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Marshall.
Dissenting: Justices Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell, and Chief Justice
Burger.
109. Federal Election Campaign Act of February 7, 1972 (86 Stat. 3), as
amended by the Federal Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (88 Stat.
1263), adding or amending 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 608(a), 608(e),
and 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437c.
Provisions of election law that forbid a candidate or the
members of his immediate family from expending personal funds in excess
of specified amounts, that limit to $1,000 the independent expenditures
of any person relative to an identified candidate, and that forbid ex
[[Page 2027]]
penditures by candidates for federal office in excess of specified
amounts violate the First Amendment speech guarantees; provisions of the
law creating a commission to oversee enforcement of the Act are an
invalid infringement of constitutional separation of powers in that they
devolve responsibilities upon a commission four of whose six members are
appointed by Congress and all six of whom are confirmed by the House of
Representatives as well as by the Senate, not in compliance with the
appointments clause.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
Concurring: Justices Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, and
Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Burger.
Dissenting (expenditure provisions only): Justice White.
Dissenting (candidate's personal funds only): Justice Marshall.
110. Act of October 1, 1976 (title II, 90 Stat. 1446); Act of October
12, 1979 (101(c), 93 Stat. 657)).
Provisions of appropriations laws rolling back automatic pay
increases for federal officers and employees is unconstitutional as to
Article III judges because, the increases having gone into effect, they
violate the security of compensation clause of Article III, Sec. 1.
United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).
111. Act of November 6, 1978 (Sec. 241(a), 92 Stat. 2668, 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1471)
Assignment to judges who do not have tenure and guarantee of
compensation protections afforded Article III judges of jurisdiction
over all proceedings arising under or in the bankruptcy act and over all
cases relating to proceedings under the bankruptcy act is invalid,
inasmuch as judges without Article III protection may not receive at
least some of this jurisdiction.
Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50
(1982).
Concurring: Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens.
Concurring specially: Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor.
Dissenting: Justices White and Powell and Chief Justice Burger.
112. Act of May 30, 1980 (94 Stat. 399, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq.) as
amended by the Act of October 14, 1980 (94 Stat. 1959).
Acts of Congress applying to bankruptcy reorganization of one
railroad and guaranteeing employee benefits is repugnant to the
requirement of Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4, that bankruptcy legislation be
``uniform.''
Railroad Labor Executives Ass'n v. Gibbons, 455 U.S. 457 (1982).
113. Act of March 3, 1873 (ch. 258, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 599, recodified in
39 U.S.C. Sec. 3001(e)(2)).
Comstock Act provision barring from the mails any unsolicited
advertisement for contraceptives, as applied to circulars and flyers
promoting prophylactics or containing information discussing the de
[[Page 2028]]
sirability and availability of prophylactics, violates the free speech
clause of the First Amendment.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983).
Justices concurring: Marshall, White, Blackmun, Powell, and Chief
Justice Burger.
Justices concurring specially: Rehnquist and O'Connor; Stevens.
114. Act of Feb. 15, 1938, ch. 29, 52 Stat. 30.
District of Columbia Code Sec. 22-1115, prohibiting the display
of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if the sign tends to
bring the foreign government into ``public odium'' or ``public
disrepute,'' violates the First Amendment.
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988).
Justices concurring: O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Scalia.
Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and White and
Blackmun.
115. Act of June 27, 1952 (ch. 477, Sec. 244(e)(2), 66 Stat. 214, 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1254 (c)(2).
Provision of the immigration law that permits either House of
Congress to veto the decision of the Attorney General to suspend the
deportation of certain aliens violates the bicameralism and presentation
requirements of lawmaking imposed upon Congress by Article I,
Sec. Sec. 1 and 7.
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
Justices concurring: Chief Justice Burger, and Brennan, Marshall,
Blackmun, and Stevens.
Justice concurring specially: Powell.
Justices dissenting: Rehnquist and White.
116. Act of September 2, 1958 (Pub. L. 85-921, Sec. 1, 72 Stat. 1771, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 504(1)).
Exemptions from ban on photographic reproduction of currency
``for philatelic, numismatic, educational, historical, or newsworthy
purposes'' violates the First Amendment because it discriminates on the
basis of the content of a publication.
Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984).
Justices concurring: White, Brennan, Blackmun, Marshall, Powell,
Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Chief Justice Burger.
Justice dissenting: Stevens.
117. Act of November 7, 1967 (Pub. L. 90-129, Sec. 201(8), 81 Stat.
368), as amended by Act of August 13, 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35,
Sec. 1229, 95 Stat. 730, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 399).
Communications Act provision banning noncommercial educational
stations receiving grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
from engaging in editorializing violates the First Amendment.
[[Page 2029]]
FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984).
Justices concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and
O'Connor.
Justices dissenting: White, Rehnquist, Stevens, and Chief Justice
Burger.
118. Act of December 10, 1971 (Pub. L. 92-178, Sec. 801, 85 Stat. 570,
26 U.S.C Sec. 9012(f)).
Provision of Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act limiting to
$1,000 the amount that independent committees may expend to further the
election of a presidential candidate financing his campaign with public
funds is an impermissible limitation of freedom of speech and
association protected by the First Amendment.
FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480
(1985).
Justices concurring: Rehnquist, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, O'Connor,
Stevens, and Chief Justice Burger.
Justices dissenting: White and Marshall.
119. Act of May 11, 1976, Pub. L. 92-225, Sec. 316, 90 Stat. 490, 2
U.S.C. Sec. 441b.
Provision of Federal Election Campaign Act requiring that
independent corporate campaign expenditures be financed by voluntary
contributions to a separate segregated fund violates the First Amendment
as applied to a corporation organized to promote political ideas, having
no stockholders, and not serving as a front for a business corporation
or union.
FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986).
Justices concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Powell, and Scalia.
Justice concurring specially: O'Connor.
Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices White,
Blackmun, and Stevens.
120. Act of November 9, 1978 (Pub. L. 95-621, Sec. 202(c)(1), 92 Stat.
3372, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3342(c)(1).
Decision of Court of Appeals holding unconstitutional provision
giving either House of Congress power to veto rules of Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission on certain natural gas pricing matters is
summarily affirmed on the authority of Chadha.
Process Gas Consumers Group v. Consumer Energy Council, 463 U.S.
1216 (1983).
121. Act of May 28, 1980 (Pub. L. 96-252, Sec. 21(a)), 94 Stat. 393, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 57a-1(a).
Decision of Court of Appeals holding unconstitutional provision
of FTC Improvements Act giving Congress power by concurrent resolution
to veto final rules of the FTC is summarily affirmed on the basis of
Chadha.
United States Senate v. FTC, 463 U.S. 1216 (1983).
[[Page 2030]]
122. Act of Jan. 12, 1983 (Pub. L. 97-459, Sec. 207), 96 Stat. 2519, 25
U.S.C. Sec. 2206.
Section of Indian Land Consolidation Act providing for escheat
to tribe of fractionated interests in land representing less than 2% of
a tract's total acreage violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause by
completely abrogating rights of intestacy and devise.
Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987).
Justices concurring: O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell,
Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Justices concurring specially: Stevens and White.
123. Act of Jan. 15, 1985, (Pub. L. 99-240, Sec. 5(d)(2)(C)), 99 Stat.
1842, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2021e(d)(2)(C).
``Take-title'' incentives contained in the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, designed to encourage states to
cooperate in the federal regulatory scheme, offend principles of
federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment. These incentives, which
require that non-participating states take title to waste or become
liable for generators' damages, cross the line distinguishing
encouragement from coercion. Congress may not simply commandeer the
legislative and regulatory processes of the states, nor may it force a
transfer from generators to state governments. A required choice between
two unconstitutionally coercive regulatory techniques is also
impermissible.
New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992).
Justices concurring: O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and
Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Justices dissenting: White, Blackmun, and Stevens.
124. Act of December 12, 1985 (Pub. L. 99-177, Sec. 251), 99 Stat. 1063,
2 U.S.C. Sec. 901.
That portion of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act which authorizes the Comptroller General to determine the
amount of spending reductions which must be accomplished each year to
reach congressional targets and which authorizes him to report a figure
to the President which the President must implement violates the
constitutional separation of powers inasmuch as the Comptroller General
is subject to congressional control (removal) and cannot be given a role
in the execution of the laws.
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986).
Justices concurring: Chief Justice Burger, and Brennan, Powell,
Rehnquist, and O'Connor.
Justices concurring specially: Stevens and Marshall.
Justices dissenting: White and Blackmun.
[[Page 2031]]
125. Act of Oct. 30, 1986 (Pub. L. 99-591, title VI, Sec. 6007(f)), 100
Stat. 3341, 49 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2456(f).
The Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, which
transferred operating control of two Washington, D.C., area airports
from the Federal Government to a regional airports authority, violates
separation of powers principles by conditioning that transfer on the
establishment of a Board of Review, composed of Members of Congress and
having veto authority over actions of the airports authority's board of
directors.
Metropolitan Washington Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement
of Aircraft Noise, 501 U.S. 252 (1991)
Justices concurring: Stevens, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy,
and Souter.
Justices dissenting: White, Marshall, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.
126. Act of April 28, 1988 (Pub. L. 100-297 Sec. 6101), 102 Stat. 424,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 223(b)(1).
Amendment to Communications Act of 1934 imposing an outright ban
on ``indecent'' but not obscene messages violates the First Amendment,
since it has not been shown to be narrowly tailored to further the
governmental interest in protecting minors from hearing such messages.
Sable Communications of California v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989).
127. Act of Oct. 28, 1989 (Pub. L. 101-131), 103 Stat. 777, 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 700.
The Flag Protection Act of 1989, criminalizing burning and
certain other forms of destruction of the United States flag, violates
the First Amendment. Most of the prohibited acts involve disrespectful
treatment of the flag, and evidence a purpose to suppress expression out
of concern for its likely communicative impact.
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Justices concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy.
Justices dissenting: Stevens, White, O'Connor, and Chief Justice
Rehnquist.