Citation network
United States Vs. Brown
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 1965
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 437 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. 437 (1965) United States v. BrownSearch
-
construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummins v. MissouriSearch
-
aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass'n v. DoudsSearch
-
retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. LovettSearch
-
to federal courts has been interpreted both as a grant of exclusive authority over certain areas. Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
as a limitation upon the judiciary, a declaration that certain tasks are not to be performed by courts, e.g., Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 219 U. S. 346 . Compare Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
of Attainder Clause was consistently interpreted by this Court -- until the decision in American Communications Ass'n v. DoudsSearch
-
S. 382 , which we shall consider hereafter. In 1810, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court in Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups. See also Ogden v. SaundersSearch
-
The approach which Chief Justice Marshall had suggested was followed in the twin post-Civil War cases of Cummings v. MissouriSearch
-
came in 1946, in United States v. LovettSearch
-
Communist Party v. SubversiveSearch
-
Garner v. LosSearch
-
criminal liability. Page 381 U. S. 453 The Solicitor General points out that, in Board of Governors v. AgnewSearch
-
but equivalent, expression for a list of undesirable characteristics. For, as the Court noted in Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
Just last Term, in Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
Schware v. BoardSearch
-
where they will in the future be able to bring about undesirable events. He relies on American Communications Ass'n v. DoudsSearch
-
Thus, Justice Iredell was on solid historical ground when he observed, in Calder v. BullSearch
-
Emphasis supplied.) We think that the Court in Douds misread United States v. LovettSearch
-
In American Communications Ass'n v. DoudsSearch
-
Reppy, The Spectre of Attainder in New York, 23 St. John's L.Rev. 1. See Respublica v. GordonSearch
-
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, pp. 536-537 (8th ed. 1927). To the same effect, See Calder v. BullSearch
-
In 1872, in Pierce v. CarskadonSearch
-
access to the courts upon the taking of an oath similar to those involved in Cummings and Garland. In Dent v. WestSearch
-
at 129 U. S. 124 , and did not single out a specific person or group for deprivation. See also Drehman v. StifleSearch
-
Noto v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Hawker v. NewSearch
-
To the same effect, see Noto v. UnitedSearch
-
The Court's opinion in Communist Party v. SubversiveSearch
-
to a finding of attainder. Such an absolute rule would have flown in the face of explicit precedent, Cummings v. MissouriSearch
-
American Communications Ass'n v. DoudsSearch
-
i.e., is directed at controlling future conduct). Flemming v. NestorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial