Citation network
United States Vs. Morrison
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 11, 2000
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. 598 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus United States V. MorrisonSearch
-
will be invalidated only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. LopezSearch
-
Together with No. 99-29, Brzonkala v. MorrisonSearch
-
of life, liberty, or property without due process, or deny any person equal protection of the laws, City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that the Amendment prohibits only state action, not private conduct. This was the conclusion reached in United States v. HarrisSearch
-
all had intimate knowledge and familiarity with the events surrounding the Amendment's adoption. Neither United States v. GuestSearch
-
U. S. 745 , nor District of Columbia v. CarterSearch
-
remedies this Court has previously upheld. See, e. g., South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
G. Summers of Tennessee, Jan Graham of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, Darrell v. McGrawSearch
-
to enact the section's civil remedy. Believing that these cases are controlled by our decisions in United States v. LopezSearch
-
U. S. 549 (1995), United States v. HarrisSearch
-
Brzonkala v. VirginiaSearch
-
s Title IX claims against Virginia Tech for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Brzonkala v. VirginiaSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brzonkala v. VirginiaSearch
-
claim and her Title IX hostile environment claim. 1 Brzonkala v. VirginiaSearch
-
s civil remedy. Brzonkala v. VirginiaSearch
-
remanded with instructions for the District Court to hold the claim in abeyance pending this Court's decision in Davis v. MonroeSearch
-
County Bd. of Ed., 526 U. S. 629 (1999). Brzonkala v. VirginiaSearch
-
enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. LopezSearch
-
United States v. HarrisSearch
-
it suffices to say that, in the years since NLRB v. JonesSearch
-
Ibid. 609 514 U. S., at 558 (citing Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Perez v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 558 (citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 559. Although we cited only a few examples, including Wickard v. FilburnSearch
-
conclusion that, in every case where we have sustained federal regulation under the aggregation principle in Wickard v. FilburnSearch
-
United States v. LankfordSearch
-
In Lopez, 514 U. S., at 567, we quoted Justice Cardozo's concurring opinion in A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Corp., 76 F.2d 617, 624 (CA2 1935) (L. Hand, J., concurring)). 7 JUSTICE SOUTER'S theory that Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
Wheat. 1 (1824), Garcia v. SanSearch
-
system of Government so that the people's rights would be secured by the division of power. See, e. g., Arizona v. EvansSearch
-
Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
scope of legislative power limited only by public opinion and the Legislature's self-restraint. See, e. g., Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''' Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
this Court has remained the ultimate expositor of the constitutional text. As we emphasized in United States v. NixonSearch
-
channels, or goods involved in interstate commerce has always been the province of the States. See, e. g., Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
realistically be interpreted as granting the Federal Government an unlimited license to regulate. See, e. g., New York v. UnitedSearch
-
power to the States, is deeply ingrained in our constitutional history. New York, supra, at 155 (quoting Gregory v. AshcroftSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial