Citation network
Gregory Vs. Ashcroft
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 1991
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
-
U.S. 452 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Gregory v. AshcroftSearch
-
U.S. 452 (1991) Gregory v. AshcroftSearch
-
Sugarman v. DougallSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Will v. MichiganSearch
-
where Congress acts pursuant to its Commerce Clause power -- as it did in extending the ADEA to the States, see EEOC v. WyomingSearch
-
precludes this Court from attributing to Congress an intent to cover appointed state judges. Although, in EEOC v. WyomingSearch
-
supra, 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 648 . Of particular relevance here is Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Clause, and since they do not claim that they have a fundamental interest in serving as judges. See, e.g., Vance v. BradleySearch
-
between the States and the Federal Government. This Court also has recognized this fundamental principle. In Tafflin v. LevittSearch
-
Texas v. WhiteSearch
-
Wall. 700, 74 U. S. 725 (1869), quoting Lane County v. OregonSearch
-
Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
U. S. 234 , 473 U. S. 242 (1985), quoting Garcia v. SanSearch
-
Taylor v. BeckhamSearch
-
U. S. 548 , 178 U. S. 570 -571 (1900). See also Boyd v. ThayerSearch
-
so 'unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.' Atascadero Page 501 U. S. 461 State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
should make its intention 'clear and manifest' if it intends to preempt the historic powers of the States, Rice v. SantaSearch
-
Will v. MichiganSearch
-
themselves, as provided in the Tenth Page 501 U. S. 462 Amendment, the power to regulate elections,' Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen.' Boyd v. ThayerSearch
-
U. S. 135 , 143 U. S. 161 (1892). See Luther v. BordenSearch
-
by virtue of its obligation, already noted above, 'to preserve the basic conception of a political community.' Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
See Bernal v. FainterSearch
-
U. S. 216 , 467 U. S. 220 (1984). See also Nyquist v. MaucletSearch
-
what Congress did in extending the ADEA to the States, pursuant to its powers under the Commerce Clause. See EEOC v. WyomingSearch
-
to consider the limits that the state-federal balance places on Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. See Garcia v. SanSearch
-
are included. This does not mean that the Act must mention judges explicitly, though it does not. Cf. Dellmuth v. MuthSearch
-
governments was a valid exercise of Congress' powers Page 501 U. S. 468 under the Commerce Clause. EEOC v. WyomingSearch
-
to its powers to enforce the Civil War Amendments. Id. at 460 U. S. 243 , and n. 18, citing City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
are a prime example of a discrete and insular' minority ( see United States v. CaroleneSearch
-
U.S. at 413 U. S. 642 , quoting Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
Id. at 413 U. S. 648 . Later cases have reaffirmed this practice. See Foley v. ConnelieSearch
-
not override all principles of federalism. Of particular relevance here is Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Page 501 U. S. 470 The Pennhurst rule looks much like the plain statement rule we apply today. In EEOC v. WyomingSearch
-
that age is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause. See Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. MurgiaSearch
-
Cleburne v. CleburneSearch
-
Bradley, supra, at 440 U. S. 97 . See also Pennell v. SanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial