Lawnix - Free Case Briefs

Rogers v. Bellei – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:56:23 +0000

Congress has the power to impose conditions subsequent regarding residence upon the citizenship of those born outside the United States. The plaintiff is not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment which defines “citizen” as one who is “born or naturalized in the United States”. The central factor in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to United States citizenship is that he was neither born nor naturalized in the United States and has not been subject to its jurisdiction. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment therefore does not apply to Bellei. [...]

District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief

Lawnix — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:58:27 +0000

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. United States v. Lopez [...]

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins – Case Brief

Lawnix — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:23:08 +0000

In actions in diversity, except in matters governed by the Constitution or acts of Congress, federal courts must apply state common law in addition to statutory law. In diversity cases, federal courts must apply state law as declared by the highest state court in addition to state statutory law. There is no federal general common law. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. [...]

United States v. Pink – Case Brief

Lawnix — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:13:56 +0000

The actions of the President regarding foreign relations have supremacy over state law. The Constitution grants to authority to conduct foreign relations to the political branches of government. The exercise of that power is not subject to judicial inquiry. The recognition of a foreign sovereign state is binding on state and federal courts. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer [...]

Afroyim v. Rusk – Case Brief

Lawnix — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:10:24 +0000

Congress does not have the power to strip an American citizen of his citizenship if that person has not voluntarily renounced it. Congress has no express power under the Constitution to revoke a person’s citizenship. Congress recognized before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, as did the Supreme Court in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, that no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission [...]

Fiallo v. Bell – Case Brief

Lawnix — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:41:39 +0000

Congress was specifically concerned with clarifying the previous law so that the illegitimate child in relation to his mother would have the same status as a legitimate child. The legislative history of those provisions reflects an intentional choice by Congress not to extend preferential immigration status by virtue of the relationship between an illegitimate child and his natural father. Hicklin v. Orbeck

Galvan v. Press – Case Brief

Lawnix — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:11:34 +0000

The power of Congress over the rights of aliens to enter and remain in the United States is not subject to the limitations of substantive due process. The Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation. The Act is constitutional as here applied to a resident alien shown to have been willingly a member of the Communist Party, although not shown to have been aware of advocacy of violent overthrow of the Government. It is enough that Galvan joined the Communist Party, aware that it was a distinct and active political organization, and that he did so of his own free will. Fletcher v. Peck [...]

Gibbons v. Ogden – Case Brief

Lawnix — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:03:10 +0000

A state may not legislation inconsistent with federal law which regulates a purely internal affair regarding trade or the police power, or is pursuant to a power to regulate interstate commerce concurrent with that of Congress. States do not have the power to regulate those phases of interstate commerce which, because of the need of national uniformity, demand that their regulation, be prescribed by a single authority. A state does not have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state navigable waters inconsistent with federal law. Wickard v. Filburn [...]

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services – Case Brief – Nixon Tapes

Lawnix — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:39:00 +0000

Congress has the power to pass an act directing the seizure and disposition, within the control of the Executive Branch, of the papers and tapes of a former president. The Executive Branch became a party to the Act's regulation when President Ford signed the Act into law and the Solicitor General under the Carter administration urged affirmance of the District Court's judgment. Moreover, the function remains in the Executive Branch in that the Administrator of General Services and the archivists are employees of that branch. Lawrence v. Texas

Longshoremen’s Union v. Boyd – Case Brief

Lawnix — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:13:53 +0000

A party may not seek a declaratory judgment regarding a statute if no sanctions have been sought under the statute and no occasion for doing so has arisen. The Longshoremen’s Union in effect asked the District Court to rule that a statute would not be applied to them under certain circumstances in the future, when no sanctions had been sought against union members and there was no occasion for doing so. Epperson v. Arkansas