Citation network
Shapiro Vs. Thompson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1969
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
-
U.S. 618 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
U.S. 618 (1969) Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. GuestSearch
-
United States v. JacksonSearch
-
period and these four admittedly permissible state objectives will suffice to justify the classification. See Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional. Cf. Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
Korematsu v. UnitedSearch
-
Bates v. LittleSearch
-
federal-state program by legislation which authorizes the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause. Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
Together with No. 33, Washington et al. v. LegrantSearch
-
from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, argued May 1, 1968, and No. 34, Reynolds et al. v. SmithSearch
-
Robertson v. OttSearch
-
Johnson v. RobinsonSearch
-
Ramos v. HealthSearch
-
Green v. DeptSearch
-
Heydenreich v. LyonsSearch
-
of Columbia. The case was mooted below, and the question has never been expressly resolved . However, in Berman v. ParkerSearch
-
district courts in the District of Columbia have continued to hear cases involving such statutes. See, e.g., Hobson v. HansenSearch
-
See Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
In Corfield v. CoryellSearch
-
F.Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3230) (C.C.E.D.Pa. 1825), Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
Wall. 168, 75 U. S. 180 (1869), and Ward v. MarylandSearch
-
Twining v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 , 211 U. S. 97 (1908). In Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 181 , 314 U. S. 183 -185 (1941) (DOUGLAS and Jackson, JJ., concurring), and Twining v. NewSearch
-
reliance was placed on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Crandall v. NevadaSearch
-
Wall. 35 (1868). In Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849), a Commerce Clause approach was employed. See also Kent v. DullesSearch
-
Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
In Rinaldi v. YeagerSearch
-
Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
social security legislation was a matter of doubt at that time in light of the decision in Schechter Poultry Cop. v. UnitedSearch
-
Like the right of association, NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kent v. DullesSearch
-
the Court has held, can be regulated within the bounds of due process. Zemel v. RuskSearch
-
King v. SmithSearch
-
create minimal residence requirements, not whether the States, acting alone, may do so. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. BenjaminSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
See Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial