Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Clements Vs. Fashing

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 1982

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

59 entries 12 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Broadrick Vs. Oklahoma US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
    Relied / Followed
  2. United Public Workers Vs. Mitchell US Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1947
    Relied / Followed
  3. Turner Vs. Fouche US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1970
  4. Mcgowan Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · May 29, 1961
  5. Bullock Vs. Carter US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1972
  6. Storer Vs. Brown US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1974
  7. Williams Vs. Rhodes US Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1968
  8. LubIn Vs. Panish US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1974
  9. American Party of Texas Vs. White US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1974
  10. Jenness Vs. Fortson US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1971
  11. Mathews Vs. Diaz US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1976
  12. Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement Vs. Murgia US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1976
  13. U.S. 957 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Clements v. Fashing
    Search
  14. U.S. 957 (1982) Clements v. Fashing
    Search
  15. a far more limited restriction on political activity than has been upheld with regard to civil servants. Cf. CSC v. Letter
    Search
  16. if his current term of office will not expire until after the legislative term to which he aspires begins. Lee v. Daniels
    Search
  17. denied appellees equal protection. Fashing v. Moore
    Search
  18. while others were not. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed without opinion. Fashing v. Moore
    Search
  19. not a justiciable controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the United States Constitution. United Public Workers v. Mitchell
    Search
  20. to the pursuit of the State's goals, and only if no grounds can be conceived to justify them. See, e.g., McDonald v. Board
    Search
  21. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez
    Search
  22. impose burdens on new or small political parties or independent candidates. See, e.g., Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist
    Search
  23. of support requirements and classifications that turn on the political party's success in prior elections. See Storer v. Brown
    Search
  24. virtually impossible for any but the two major parties to achieve ballot positions for their candidates. See Williams v. Rhodes
    Search
  25. of the interests that are affected and the extent of the burden these provisions place on candidacy. See Bullock v. Carter
    Search
  26. principles to uphold a classification scheme that denied absentee ballots to inmates in jail awaiting trial. McDonald v. Board
    Search
  27. which are invidious, arbitrary, or irrational offend the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Williamson v. Lee
    Search
  28. is hardly a significant barrier to candidacy. In Storer v. Brown
    Search
  29. Similarly, we upheld a 7-year durational residency requirement for candidacy Page 457 U. S. 968 in Chimento v. Stark
    Search
  30. predicate in order to survive a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause. See Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist
    Search
  31. because the State could have selected another means of achieving the desired ends. Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia
    Search
  32. is invalid because it burdens only those officeholders who desire to run for the legislature. In Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  33. positions require restrictions on partisan political activities and which may be left unregulated. See McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  34. Williamson v. Lee
    Search
  35. McDonald v. Board
    Search
  36. not the sort of malfunctioning of the State's lawmaking process forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. See McDonald v. Board
    Search
  37. A regulation is not devoid of a rational predicate simply because it happens to be incomplete. See Williamson v. Lee
    Search
  38. candidacy for another elected office unless and until it places similar restrictions on other officeholders. Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  39. U.S. at 413 U. S. 607 , n. 5. Cf. Minnesota v. Clover
    Search
  40. a far more limited restriction on political activity than this Court has upheld with regard to civil servants. See CSC v. Letter
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court Clements v. Fashing
    Search
  42. Cf. CSC v. Letter
    Search
  43. Lee v. Daniels
    Search
  44. Fashing v. Moore
    Search
  45. of Art. III of the United States Constitution. United Public Workers v. Mitchell
    Search
  46. Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist
    Search
  47. See Storer v. Brown
    Search
  48. See Williams v. Rhodes
    Search
  49. See Bullock v. Carter
    Search
  50. the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Williamson v. Lee
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial