Court : US Supreme Court
..... front tract bordered, and where there were similarly situated tracts, so that each claimant could not obtain a quantity equal to his front grant, it was made the duty of the surveyor to divide the vacant land between the several claimants in such manner as to him might appear most equitable. to gratify preemptions claims secured by the act, no township ..... surveyed before the time for making entries expired. by the seventh section of the act of may 11, 1820, the fifth section of the act of march 3, 1811, was renewed, and continued in force until may 11, 1822; and by the act of june 15, 1832, the act of 1811 was again renewed for three years, with some slight amendments; and by ..... the act of february 24, 1835, the time was further extended to june 15, 1836. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... california, 291 u. s. 242 . [ footnote 22 ] rainier national park v. martin, 18 f.supp. 481, 488. [ footnote 23 ] cf. electric bond & share co. v. securities & exchange comm'n, 303 u. s. 419 . [ footnote 24 ] art. 20, 22, of the california constitution provides that the state board of equalization "shall have the power, in ..... different legislation, this adjustment was desirable. the states of the union and the national government may make mutually satisfactory arrangements as to jurisdiction of territory within their borders, and thus, in a most effective way, cooperatively adjust problems flowing from our dual system of government. [ footnote 11 ] jurisdiction obtained by consent or ..... granted the united states title to the "cleft" or "gorge," known as yosemite valley and the mariposa big tree grove. as the act of march 31, 1891, was then in force, see note 6 exclusive jurisdiction, with the exception of right to administer criminal laws and serve civil process, passed to the united states, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... involve more than a contention that the supremacy clause requires that a federal statute be given effect over conflicting state law; that the social security act is not an act of congress securing either "equal rights" or "civil rights" as those terms are used in 1343; and that those terms limit the grant of federal ..... such explicit evidence as rev.stat. 1891, which provided: "the constitution and all laws of the united states which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect . . . in every territory hereafter organized as elsewhere within the united states." despite the fact that no reference to territories of the united states ..... included provisions imposing criminal and civil penalties for conspiracies to deprive individuals of constitutional rights, and authorizing the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and use armed forces to suppress "insurrection." 2-5, 17 stat. 13; see cong.globe, 42d cong., 1st sess., app. 220 (1871) (remarks of sen. thurman). see .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... [ footnote 4 ] the court went on to say that, in any event, 18 u.s.c. 241 is not an available sanction to protect rights secured by that title because 207(b) of the 1964 act, 42 u.s.c. 2000a-6(b) (1964 ed.), specifies that the remedies provided in title ii itself are page 383 u. s. 751 to ..... political interests are likewise served by free movement. surely these interests can be impeded by private vigilantes as well as by state action. although this argument is not without force, i do not think it is particularly persuasive. there is a difference in power between states and private groups so great that analogies between the two tend to be ..... create rights under the equal protection clause even though the participation of the state was peripheral, or its action was only one of several cooperative page 383 u. s. 756 forces leading to the constitutional violation. see, e.g., shelley v. kraemer, 334 u. s. 1 ; pennsylvania v. board of trusts, 353 u. s. 230 ; burton v. wilmington parking .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... "2. the benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community ..... paragraph (1) shall not apply to any alien if the attorney general determines that- "(d) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the united states." before its amendment in 1965, 243(h), 66 stat. 214, read as follows: "the attorney general is authorized to withhold deportation of any ..... had implications beyond this nation's borders. the "commonsense notion" that congress was looking inwards-perfectly valid in a case involving the federal tort claims act, such as smith,-cannot be reasonably applied to the refugee act of 1980. in this regard, the majority's dictum that the presumption has "special force" when we construe "statutory provisions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... at the request of the iraqi government, and in accordance with united nations (u. n.) security council resolutions. pursuant to the u. n. mandate, mnf i forces detain individuals alleged to have committed hostile or warlike acts in iraq, pending investigation and prosecution in iraqi courts under iraqi law. these consolidated cases concern ..... exchange v. mcfaddon , 7 cranch 116, 136 (1812). see wilson, supra , at 529 ( a sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender its jurisdiction ); reid v. covert , 354 u. s. 1 , 15, n. 29 (1957) (opinion of black, j ..... a japanese court. 354 u. s., at 529. nevertheless, in light of the background principle that japan had a sovereign interest in prosecuting crimes committed within its borders, this court found no constitutional or statutory impediment to the united states s waiver of its jurisdiction under the agreement. id. , at 530. * * * .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... in them and their grantees when they had dealt with such tidelands as private property, subject, of course, to the paramount right of navigation secured to the public. these statutes have been largely acted upon, and many titles acquired under them to tidelands. in the various questions relating to tidelands which have come before the judiciary, the ..... when organized and admitted into the union. grants by congress of portions of the public lands within a territory to settlers thereon, though bordering on or bounded by navigable waters convey, of their own force no title or right below high water mark, and do not impair the title and dominion of the future state, when created, but ..... law, has no peculiar rights in this public domain as incidents of his estate, and that the privileges he possesses by the local custom, or by force of the wharf act, to acquire such rights, can, before possession has been taken, be regulated or revoked at the will of the legislature. the result is that there is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... for school purposes, of sections 16 and 36 of each congressional township, of which the complainant still owns many thousand acres, much of which borders on the arkansas river. that by act of congress of march 3, 1863, the complainant became the owner of each odd-numbered section of land in the arkansas valley, and has ..... least, as may be necessary for the beneficial uses of the government property. second, that it is limited by the superior power of the general government to secure the uninterrupted navigability of all navigable streams within the limits of the united states. in other words, the jurisdiction of the general government over interstate commerce and its ..... the states, and must, so far as they are concerned, be limited to authority over the property belonging to the united states within their limits. appreciating the force of this, counsel for the government relies upon "the doctrine of sovereign and inherent power;" adding, "i am aware that in advancing this doctrine i seem to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... concept of territorial sovereignty is so deep-seated, any state may resent the refusal of the courts of another sovereign to accord validity to acts within its territorial borders. piecemeal dispositions of this sort involving the probability of affront to another state could seriously interfere with negotiations being carried on by the executive ..... thereafter, subsequent to the united states government's reduction of the cuban sugar quota, the cuban government expropriated the corporation's property and rights. to secure consent for shipment of the sugar, the broker, by a new contract, agreed to make payment for the sugar to a cuban instrumentality which thereafter ..... part of the united states, justifying the taking of countermeasures by cuba. the law gave the cuban president and prime minister discretionary power to nationalize by forced expropriation property or enterprises in which american nationals had an interest. [ footnote 3 ] although page 376 u. s. 402 a system of compensation was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... however, the executive must recognize the individuality of the alien, just as it must recognize the individuality of all other persons within our borders. if in this case the government acted out of a belief that haitians (or negroes for that matter) are more likely than others to commit crimes or be disruptive of ..... policy. . . . it merely sets out a few specific categories of aliens . . . who the district director generally should parole in the absence of countervailing security risks. it leaves the page 472 u. s. 862 weighing necessary to making parole decisions regarding these categories, as well as all other parole decisions, purely in ..... statute or the regulations. i therefore dissent. [ footnote 2/1 ] that the analysis would be different for race discrimination in no way detracts from the force of my argument. petitioners complain in part about differential treatment based on national origin. because neither the statute nor the regulations prohibit nationality distinctions, the court .....
Tag this Judgment!