Citation network
Regan Vs. Taxation with Representation
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1983
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
-
Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
With Representation - 461 U.S. 540 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983) Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
S. 541 Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. Cammarano v. UnitedSearch
-
that Congress' decision not to subsidize its lobbying violates the First Amendment. It claims, relying on Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
held that the government may not deny a benefit to a person because he exercises a constitutional right. See Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
exercise a constitutional right. Page 461 U. S. 546 This aspect of these cases is controlled by Cammarano v. UnitedSearch
-
of a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech, or employ a suspect classification, such as race. E.g., Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
Madden v. KentuckySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 83 , 309 U. S. 87 -88 (1940) (footnotes omitted). See also San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
Lehnhausen v. LakeSearch
-
and discretion not open to judicial review unless in circumstances which here we are not able to find. United States v. RealtySearch
-
Cincinnati Soap Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Alabama v. TexasSearch
-
the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right, and thus is not subject to strict scrutiny. Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
challenges to this provision without applying strict scrutiny. Id. at 424 U. S. 93 -108. Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
supra, and Maher v. RoeSearch
-
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
Together with No. 82-134, Taxation With Representation of Washington v. ReganSearch
-
to those that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the States. E.g., Schweiker v. WilsonSearch
-
subsidies, on the other, we of course do not mean to assert that they are in all respects identical. See, e.g., Walz v. TaxSearch
-
Fair Housing v. CitySearch
-
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
Section 501(c)(3) does not merely deny a subsidy for lobbying activities, see Cammarano v. UnitedSearch
-
Because lobbying is protected by the First Amendment, Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. NoerrSearch
-
I therefore agree with the Court that the First Amendment questions in these cases are controlled by Cammarano v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 358 U. S. 498 , 358 U. S. 513 (1959), rather than by Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
U. S. 513 , 357 U. S. 518 -519 (1958), and Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
See Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
Cammarano v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
See Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
E.g., Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
United States v. RealtySearch
-
Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
and Maher v. RoeSearch
-
Taxation With Representation of Washington v. ReganSearch
-
the States. E.g., Schweiker v. WilsonSearch
-
Walz v. TaxSearch
-
Fair Housing v. CitySearch
-
the First Amendment, Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. NoerrSearch
-
and Perry v. SindermannSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial