Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Buckley Vs. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 12, 1999

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

65 entries 7 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Storer Vs. Brown US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1974
  2. Anderson Vs. Celebrezze US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1983
  3. Burdick Vs. Takushi US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1992
  4. Brown Vs. Hartlage US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1982
  5. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  6. Burson Vs. Freeman US Supreme Court · Oct 08, 1991
  7. Meyer Vs. Grant US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1988
  8. Buckley v. American
    Search
  9. Foundation, Inc. - 525 U.S. 182 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Buckley, Secretary of State of Colorado V. American
    Search
  10. That court properly sought guidance from this Court's recent decisions on ballot access, see, e. g., Timmons v. Twin
    Search
  11. Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351 , and on handbill distribution, see, e. g., McIntyre v. Ohio
    Search
  12. the registration, badge, and disclosure requirements. See 522 U. S. 1107. Precedent guides this review. In Meyer v. Grant
    Search
  13. In ruling on these disclosure requirements, the Court of Appeals looked primarily to this Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  14. Precedent guides our review. In Meyer v. Grant
    Search
  15. see Timmons v. Twin
    Search
  16. restrictive of political speech, and therefore declared them invalid. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  17. and William David Orr, a minor who wanted to circulate petitions. See American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  18. requirements and the six-month limit on petition circulation. See American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  19. CAlO 1997). That court properly sought guidance from our recent decisions on ballot access, see, e. g., Timmons v. Twin
    Search
  20. Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351 (1997), and on handbill distribution, see McIntyre v. Ohio
    Search
  21. support of cross-motions for summary judgment and at a bench trial. See American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  22. See Biddulph v. Mortham
    Search
  23. thousands of signatures of only registered electors throughout the state.''' Id., at 1099-1100 (quoting Loonan v. Woodley
    Search
  24. Taxpayers United For Assessment Cuts v. Austin
    Search
  25. see Bernbeck v. Moore
    Search
  26. Our decision in McIntyre v. Ohio
    Search
  27. We similarly confine our decision. 20 As the Tenth Circuit observed, see 120 F. 3d, at 1101, neither Riley v. National
    Search
  28. Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781 (1988), nor Martin v. City
    Search
  29. a counterpart to the affidavit, which puts each petition circulator's name and address on a public record. 201 v Like
    Search
  30. regulations governing candidate-petition circulators). 202 decision in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  31. see also Grosjean v. American
    Search
  32. when money is paid to, or for, candidates. See Meyer, 486 U. S., at 427-428 (citing First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  33. must regulate their elections to ensure that they are conducted in a fair and orderly fashion. See, e. g., Timmons v. Twin
    Search
  34. and required that the legislation be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. See, e. g., Burson v. Freeman
    Search
  35. First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  36. a State's law does not directly regulate core political speech, we have applied strict scrutiny. For example, in Meyer v. Grant
    Search
  37. Fair Housing v. Berkeley
    Search
  38. applied strict scrutiny without first determining that the State's law severely burdens speech. Indeed, in McIntyre v. Ohio
    Search
  39. but see Eu v. San
    Search
  40. Tashjian v. Republican
    Search
  41. Eu, supra, at 231. In Storer v. Brown
    Search
  42. U. S., at 736. 209 man v. Reed
    Search
  43. burden of demonstrating that fraud is a real, rather than a conjectural, problem. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
    Search
  44. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal
    Search
  45. in its entirety, American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  46. Colo. 1994), and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in full. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  47. cannot turn on the content or sophistication of a political message. Cf. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal
    Search
  48. on core political speech similar to the one we recognized in Meyer. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  49. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
    Search
  50. Syllabus Buckley, Secretary of State of Colorado V. American
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial