Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Weiss Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 19, 1994

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

67 entries 11 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  2. Parker Vs. Levy US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1974
  3. Middendorf Vs. Henry US Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1976
  4. Chappell Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1983
  5. Tumey Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1927
  6. United States Vs. Germaine US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  7. Freytag Vs. Commissioner US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1991
  8. Harmon Vs. Brucker US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1958
  9. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  10. Morrison Vs. Olson US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1988
  11. Frontiero Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · May 14, 1973
  12. Weiss v. United
    Search
  13. States - 510 U.S. 163 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Weiss V. United
    Search
  14. Together with Hernandez v. United
    Search
  15. the same court (see this Court's Rule 12.2). 164 Syllabus force require a second appointment. Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  16. and subsequent decisions simply do not speak to this question. The present case is also distinguishable from Shoemaker v. United
    Search
  17. The lack of a fixed term of office for military judges does not violate the Due Process Clause. Neither Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  18. U. S. 319 , nor Medina v. California
    Search
  19. fixed term of office violated the Due Process Clause. Relying on its recent decision in United States v. Graf
    Search
  20. of the United States. See Freytag v. Commissioner
    Search
  21. such an appointment by its own force. They urge upon us in support of this contention our decisions in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  22. U. S. 1 (1976), Freytag v. Commissioner
    Search
  23. U. S. 868 (1991), and Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  24. attention to, and the parties before us have extensively briefed, the significance of our opinion in Shoemaker v. United
    Search
  25. does not require life tenure for Article I judges, including military judges. See United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles
    Search
  26. Nor does the trial by an Article I judge lacking life tenure violate an accused's due process rights. See Palmore v. United
    Search
  27. affairs, and that Clause provides some measure of protection to defendants in military proceedings. See Rostker v. Gold-
    Search
  28. Ibid. Petitioners urge that we apply the due process analysis established in Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  29. U. S. 319 , 334-335 (1976). The Government contends that Medina v. California
    Search
  30. Solorio v. United
    Search
  31. demonstrated its vigilance in checking any attempts to exert improper influence over military judges. In United States v. Mabe
    Search
  32. as we have called them, see Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  33. Department of Defense, Military Manpower Statistics 18 (Mar. 31, 1993) (Table 9)) is a principal officer. See Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  34. and though Congress has broad power to create federal offices and assign duties to them, see Myers v. United
    Search
  35. Springer v. Philippine
    Search
  36. Myers v. United
    Search
  37. can be defeated. First, no branch may aggrandize its own appointment power at the expense of another. See Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  38. cases generally) have typically addressed allegations of aggrandizement rather than abdication. See, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  39. Shoemaker v. United
    Search
  40. Buckley, supra, at 123 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  41. U. S. 579 (1952)). 3 In Freytag v. Commissioner
    Search
  42. has violated the bar on abdication. 4 The theme of abdication has not been entirely absent, however. In Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  43. by both Congress and the President of their Appointments Clause duties. 5 Cf. J. W Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United
    Search
  44. A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United
    Search
  45. to avoid annulling them as excessive abdications of constitutional responsibility, see Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American
    Search
  46. National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. United
    Search
  47. Freytag held, Tax Court judges may appoint inferior officers). In terms of the factors identified in Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  48. In re Sealed Case, 838 F.2d 476 , 532 (CAD C) (dissenting opinion), rev'd sub nom. Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  49. Winters v. United
    Search
  50. States, 89 S. Ct. 57, 59-60, 21 L. Ed. 2d 80, 84 (1968) (Douglas, J., in chambers). See also Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial