Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sabri Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 17, 2004

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

60 entries 7 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Hanna Vs. Plumer US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  2. Stenberg Vs. Carhart US Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2000
  3. City of Boerne Vs. Flores US Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1997
  4. United States Vs. Lopez US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1995
  5. South Dakota Vs. Dole US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1987
  6. Chicago Vs. Morales US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1999
  7. United States Vs. Raines US Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1960
  8. Sabri v. United
    Search
  9. States - 03-44 (2004) Syllabus October Term, 2003 Sabri V. United
    Search
  10. States Supreme Court of the United States Sabri V. United
    Search
  11. the general welfare, rather than frittered away in graft or upon projects undermined by graft. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  12. is of a piece with the legislation ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Lopez
    Search
  13. U. S. 549 , and United States v. Morrison
    Search
  14. federal power to bear directly on individuals who convert public spending into unearned private gain. South Dakota v. Dole
    Search
  15. applied to different parties and different circumstances from those at hand. See, e.g ., Chicago v. Morales
    Search
  16. s well-founded reticence. See, e.g ., Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  17. concurring in part, in which Scalia, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Sabri v. United
    Search
  18. States - 03-44 (2004) Opinion of the Court Sabri V. United
    Search
  19. Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-44 Basim Omar Sabri, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  20. beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Sabri claims his attack meets the demanding standard set out in United States v. Salerno
    Search
  21. are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars. See generally McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  22. establishing review for means-ends rationality under the Necessary and Proper Clause). See also Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  23. or show up in the guise of a quid pro quo for some dereliction in spending a federal grant. Cf. Salinas v. United
    Search
  24. less threatening to the objects behind federal spending just because they may accept general retainers. See Westfall v. United
    Search
  25. s opinion in Dixson v. United
    Search
  26. s authority under the Commerce Clause in United States v. Lopez
    Search
  27. U. S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison
    Search
  28. impermissibly sweeping, condition on the grant of federal funds as judged under the criterion applied in South Dakota v. Dole
    Search
  29. statute, and begin by recalling that facial challenges are best when infrequent. See, e.g ., United States v. Raines
    Search
  30. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Jackson
    Search
  31. on the strength of specific reasons weighty enough to overcome our well-founded reticence. See, e.g ., Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  32. Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  33. the constitutionality of the law, we mean to express no view as to its soundness as a policy matter. Sabri v. United
    Search
  34. it. The Court in Part III does not specifically question the practice we have followed in cases such as United States v. Lopez
    Search
  35. in enacting the statutes challenged there, had exceeded its legislative power under the Constitution. Sabri v. United
    Search
  36. States - 03-44 (2004) Thomas, J., Concurring in Judgment Sabri V. United
    Search
  37. s precedent. Cf. Perez v. United
    Search
  38. S. 146 , 154 (1971). I continue to doubt that we have correctly interpreted the Commerce Clause. See United States v. Morrison
    Search
  39. s characterization of the seminal case McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  40. cf. Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  41. United States v. Santopietro
    Search
  42. used a very similar formulation in describing the appropriate test under the Necessary and Proper Clause. In Jinks v. Richland
    Search
  43. powers. See United States v. Hall
    Search
  44. McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  45. and United States v. Morrison
    Search
  46. Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  47. Opinion of the Court Sabri V. United
    Search
  48. Basim Omar Sabri, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  49. Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  50. Cf. Salinas v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial