Court : US Supreme Court
Heckler v. Chaney - 470 U.S. 821 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) Heckler v. Chaney No. 83-1878 Argued December 3, 1984 Decided March 20, 1985 470 U.S. 821 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent prison inmates were convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs. They petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that use of the drugs for such a purpose violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and requesting that the FDA take various enforcement actions to prevent those violations. The FDA refused the request. Respondents then brought an action in Federal District Court against petitioner Secretary of Health and Human Services, making the same claim and seeking the same enforcement actions. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, holding that nothing in the FDCA indicated an intent to circumsc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chicago v. Morales - 527 U.S. 41 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus CITY OF CHICAGO v. MORALES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS No.97-1121. Argued December 9, 1998-Decided June 10, 1999 Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibits "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promptly obey such an order has violated the ordinance. The police department's General Order 92-4 purports to limit officers' enforcement discretion by confining arrest authority to designated officers, establishing detailed criteria for defining street gangs and membership therein, and providing for designated, but publicly undisclosed, enforcement areas. Two trial judges upheld the ordinance's constitutionality, but 11 others ruled it invalid. The Illino...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Arizona v. United States NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA etal. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 11182.Argued April 25, 2012Decided June 25, 2012 An Arizona statute known as S.B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemean...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD DYSON Introduction These two cases raise a number of important issues in relation to the detention pending deportation of foreign national prisoners ("FNPs") following the completion of their sentences of imprisonment. Section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act") provides that a person who is not a British citizen is liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State "deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good". Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act provides in certain specified circumstances for the detention of such a person pending his deportation. Walumba Lumba is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo ("DRC") who entered the UK on 10 April 1994. He was convicted of a number of offences culminating in an offence of wounding with intent for which he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on 12 January 2004. On 3 April 2006, the Secretary of State informed Mr Lumba of his intention to deport him under section 3(5)(a) of the 1971 A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico - 457 U.S. 853 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico by Pico No. 80-2043 Argued March 2, 1982 Decided June 25, 1982 457 U.S. 853 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner Board of Education, rejecting recommendations of a committee of parents and school staff that it had appointed, ordered that certain books, which the Board characterized as "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Sem[i]tic, and just plain filthy," be removed from high school and junior high school libraries. Respondent students then brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Board and petitioner Board members, alleging that the Board's actions had denied respondents their rights under the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles - 482 U.S. 304 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California No. 85-1199 Argued January 14, 1987 Decided June 9, 1987 482 U.S. 304 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Syllabus In 1957, appellant church purchased land on which it operated a campground, known as "Lutherglen," as a retreat center and a recreational area for handicapped children. The land is located in a canyon along the banks of a creek that is the natural drainage channel for a watershed area. In 1978, a flood destroyed Lutherglen's buildings. In response to the flood, appellee Los Angeles County, in 1979, adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the construction or reconstruction of any building or structure in an interim flood protection area that included the land on which Lutherglen had stood. Sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dole v. United Steelworkers - 494 U.S. 26 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Dole v. United Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990) Dole v. United Steelworkers of America No. 88-1434 Argued Nov. 6, 1989 Decided Feb. 21, 1990 494 U.S. 26 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, petitioner Department of Labor (DOL) promulgated a Hazard Communications Standard, which imposed disclosure requirements on manufacturers aimed at ensuring that their employees were informed of the potential hazards posed by chemicals in the workplace. Among other things, the Standard required the manufacturers to label hazardous chemical containers, conduct training on the chemicals' dangers, and make available to employees safety data sheets on the chemicals. Respondents and others challenged the Standard in the Court of Appeals. The court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had not adeq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Freytag v. Commissioner - 501 U.S. 868 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) Freytag v. Commissioner No. 90-762 Argued April 23, 1991 Decided June 27, 1991 501 U.S. 868 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court, an Article I court composed of 19 judges appointed by the President, is authorized to appoint special trial judges, 26 U.S.C. 7443A(a), and to assign to them certain specified proceedings, 7443A(b)(1), (2), and (3), and "any other proceeding which the chief judge may designate," 7443A(b)(4). As to subsection (b)(4) proceedings, the special trial judge may hear the case and prepare proposed findings and an opinion, but the actual decision is rendered by a Tax Court judge, 7443A(c). When petitioners sought review in the Tax Court of determinations of approximately $1.5 billion in federal income tax deficiencies, their cases were assigned to a Tax C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Horne v. Flores - 08-289 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 HORNE V. FLORES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HORNE, SUPERINTENDENT, ARIZONA PUBLICINSTRUCTION v . FLORES etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 08289.Argued April 20, 2009Decided June 25, 2009 A group of English Language-Learner (ELL) students and their parents (plaintiffs) filed a class action, alleging that Arizona, its State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (defendants) were providing inadequate ELL instruction in the Nogales Unified School District (Nogales), in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), which requires States to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers in schools, 20 U. S.C. 1703(f). In 2000, the Federal District Court entered a declaratory judgment, finding an EEOA violation in Nogales because the amount of funding the State allocated for the special needs of ELL students (ELL ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ysursa v. Pocatello Ed. Assn. - 07-869 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 YSURSA V. POCATELLO ED. ASSN. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES YSURSA, SECRETARY OF STATE OF IDAHO, etal. v . POCATELLO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 07869.Argued November 3, 2008Decided February 24, 2009 Idahos Right to Work Act permits public employees to authorize payroll deductions for general union dues, but prohibits such deductions for union political activities. Respondentsa group of Idaho public employee unionssued, alleging that the ban on payroll deductions for political activities violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court upheld the ban at the state level, but struck it down as it applies to local governments. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit stated that, while Idaho has the ultimate control over local governmental units, it did not actually operate or control their payroll deduction systems. Th...
Tag this Judgment!