[Constitution of the United States of America:  Analysis, and Interpretation - 1992 Edition ]
[Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 1999]]



________________________________________________________________________


                            ACTS OF CONGRESS

                    HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR

                             IN PART BY THE

                   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

________________________________________________________________________

[[Page 2001]]

 
                 ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL
    IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

1. Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 81, Sec. 13, in part).
        Provision that ``. . . [the Supreme Court] shall have power to 
issue . . . writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and 
usages of law, to any . . . persons holding office, under authority of 
the United States'' as applied to the issue of mandamus to the Secretary 
of State requiring him to deliver to plaintiff a commission (duly signed 
by the President) as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia 
held an attempt to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme 
Court, fixed by Article III, Sec. 2.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803).

2. Act of February 20, 1812 (2 Stat. 677).
        Provisions establishing board of revision to annul titles 
conferred many years previously by governors of the Northwest Territory 
were held violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 160 (1868).

3. Act of March 6, 1820 (3 Stat. 548, Sec. 8, proviso).
        The Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery within the 
Louisiana Territory north of 36 deg. 30' except Missouri, held not 
warranted as a regulation of Territory belonging to the United States 
under Article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 (and see Fifth Amendment).

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Taney.

    Concurring specially: Justices Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, 
Campbell, and Catron.

    Dissenting: Justices McLean, Curtis.

4. Act of February 25, 1862 (12 Stat. 345, Sec. 1); July 11, 1862 (12 
        Stat. 532, Sec. 1); March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 711, Sec. 3), each 
        in part only.
        ``Legal tender clauses,'' making noninterest-bearing United 
States notes legal tender in payment of ``all debts, public and 
private,'' so far as applied to debts contracted before passage of the 
act, held not within express or implied powers of Congress under Article 
I, Sec. 8, and inconsistent with Article I, Sec. 10, and Fifth 
Amendment.

    Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603 (1870); overruled in Knox 
v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Chase, and Justices Nelson, Clifford, 
Grier, and Field.

    Dissenting: Justices Miller, Swayne, and Davis.


[[Page 2002]]


5. Act of May 20, 1862 (Sec. 35, 12 Stat. 394); Act of May 21, 1862 (12 
        Stat. 407); Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 187); Act of July 23, 
        1866 (14 Stat. 216); Revised Statutes Relating to the District 
        of Columbia, Act of June 22, 1874, (Sec. Sec. 281, 282, 294, 
        304, 18 Stat. pt. 2).
        Provisions of law requiring, or construed to require, racial 
separation in the schools of the District of Columbia, held to violate 
the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth 
Amendment.

    Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

6. Act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 756, Sec. 5).
        ``So much of the fifth section . . . as provides for the removal 
of a judgment in a State court, and in which the cause was tried by a 
jury to the circuit court of the United States for a retrial on the 
facts and law, is not in pursuance of the Constitution, and is void'' 
under the Seventh Amendment.

    The Justices v. Murray, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 274 (1870).

7. Act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 766, Sec. 5).
        Provision for an appeal from the Court of Claims to the Supreme 
Court--there being, at the time, a further provision (Sec. 14) requiring 
an estimate by the Secretary of the Treasury before payment of final 
judgment, held to contravene the judicial finality intended by the 
Constitution, Article III.

    Gordon v. United States, 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 561 (1865). (Case was 
dismissed without opinion; the grounds upon which this decision was made 
were stated in a posthumous opinion by Chief Justice Taney printed in 
the appendix to volume 117 U.S. 697.)

8. Act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat. 311, Sec. 13).
        Provision that ``any prize cause now pending in any circuit 
court shall, on the application of all parties in interest . . . be 
transferred by that court to the Supreme Court. . . ,'' as applied in a 
case where no action had been taken in the Circuit Court on the appeal 
from the district court, held to propose an appeal procedure not within 
Article III, Sec. 2.

    The Alicia, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 571 (1869).

9. Act of January 24, 1865 (13 Stat. 424).
        Requirement of a test oath (disavowing actions in hostility to 
the United States) before admission to appear as attorney in a federal 
court by virtue of any previous admission, held invalid as applied to an 
attorney who had been pardoned by the President for all offenses during 
the Rebellion--as ex post facto (Article I, Sec. 9, clause 3) and an 
interference with the pardoning power (Article II, Sec. 2, clause 1).

    Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867).
    
[[Page 2003]]


    Concurring: Justices Field, Wayne, Grier, Nelson, and Clifford.

    Dissenting: Justices Miller, Swayne, and Davis, and Chief Justice 
Chase.

10. Act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 484, Sec. 29).
        General prohibition on sale of naphtha, etc., for illuminating 
purposes, if inflammable at less temperature than 110 deg.F., held 
invalid ``except so far as the section named operates within the United 
States, but without the limits of any State,'' as being a mere police 
regulation.

    United States v. Dewitt, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 41 (1870).

11. Act of May 31, 1870 (16 Stat. 140, Sec. Sec. 3, 4).
        Provisions penalizing (1) refusal of local election official to 
permit voting by persons offering to qualify under State laws, 
applicable to any citizens; and (2) hindering of any person from 
qualifying or voting, held invalid under Fifteenth Amendment.

    United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Waite, and Justices Miller, Field, 
Bradley, Swayne, Davis, and Strong.

    Dissenting: Justices Clifford, Hunt.

12. Act of July 12, 1870 (16 Stat. 235).
        Provision making Presidential pardons inadmissible in evidence 
in Court of Claims, prohibiting their use by that court in deciding 
claims or appeals, and requiring dismissal of appeals by the Supreme 
Court in cases where proof of loyalty had been made otherwise than as 
prescribed by law, held an interference with judicial power under 
Article III, Sec. 1, and with the pardoning power under Article II, 
Sec. 2, clause 1.

    United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Chase, and Justices Nelson, Swayne, Davis, 
Strong, Clifford, and Field.

    Dissenting: Justices Miller, Bradley.

13. Act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. 1878, Sec. 4).
        Provision authorizing federal courts, in suits for forfeitures 
under revenue and custom laws, to require production of documents, with 
allegations expected to be proved therein to be taken as proved on 
failure to produce such documents, was held violative of the search and 
seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment and the self-incrimination 
clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).

    Concurring: Justices Bradley, Field, Harlan, Woods, Matthews, Gray, 
and Blatchford.

    Concurring specially: Justice Miller and Chief Justice Waite.


[[Page 2004]]


14. Revised Statutes 1977 (Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 144).
        Provision that ``all persons within the jurisdiction of the 
United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to 
make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . 
,'' held invalid under the Thirteenth Amendment.

    Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1906), overruled in Jones v. 
Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 441-43 (1968).

    Concurring: Justices Brewer, Brown, Fuller, Peckham, McKenna, 
Holmes, Moody, and Chief Justice White.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Day.

15. Revised Statutes 4937-4947 (Act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 210), and 
        Act of August 14, 1876 (19 Stat. 141).
        Original trademark law, applying to marks ``for exclusive use 
within the United States,'' and a penal act designed solely for the 
protection of rights defined in the earlier measure, held not 
supportable by Article I, Sec. 8, clause 8 (copyright clause), nor 
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3, by reason of its application to intrastate 
as well as interstate commerce.

    Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879).

16. Revised Statutes 5132, subdivision 9 (Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 
        539).
        Provision penalizing ``any person respecting whom bankruptcy 
proceedings are commenced . . . who, within 3 months before the 
commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, under the false color and 
pretense of carrying on business and dealing in the ordinary course of 
trade, obtains on credit from any person any goods or chattels with 
intent to defraud . . . ,'' held a police regulation not within the 
bankruptcy power (Article I, Sec. 4, clause 4).

    United States v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670 (1878).

17. Revised Statutes 5507 (Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 141, 4).
        Provision penalizing ``every person who prevents, hinders, 
controls, or intimidates another from exercising . . . the right of 
suffrage, to whom that right is guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, by means of bribery . . . ,'' 
held not authorized by the Fifteenth Amendment.

    James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127 (1903).

    Concurring: Justices Brewer, Fuller, Peckham, Holmes, and Day, and 
Chief Justice White.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Brown.

18. Revised Statutes 5519 (Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13, Sec. 2).
        Section providing punishment in case ``two or more persons in 
any State . . . conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving . . . any 
per

[[Page 2005]]
son . . . of the equal protection of the laws . . . or for the purpose 
of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State 
. . . from giving or securing to all persons within such State . . . the 
equal protection of the laws . . . ,'' held invalid as not being 
directed at state action proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

    United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).

    Concurring: Justices Woods, Miller, Bradley, Gray, Field, Matthews, 
and Blatchford, and Chief Justice White.

    Dissenting: Justice Harlan.

    In Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (1887), an attempt was made to 
distinguish the Harris case and to apply the statute to a conspiracy 
directed at aliens within a State, but the provision was held not 
enforceable in such limited manner.

19. Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, Sec. 1064 (Act of June 
        17, 1870, 16 Stat. 154, Sec. 3).
        Provision that ``prosecutions in the police court [of the 
District of Columbia] shall be by information under oath, without 
indictment by grand jury or trial by petit jury,'' as applied to 
punishment for conspiracy, held to contravene Article III, Sec. 2, 
clause 3, requiring jury trial of all crimes.

    Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888).

20. Act of March 1, 1875 (18 Stat. 336, Sec. Sec. 1, 2).
        Provision ``That all persons within the jurisdiction of the 
United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the 
accommodations . . . of inns, public conveyances on land or water, 
theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the 
conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to 
citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition 
of servitude''--subject to penalty, held not to be supported by the 
Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments.

    Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), as to operation within 
States.

    Concurring: Justices Bradley, Miller, Field, Woods, Matthews, Gray, 
and Blatchford, and Chief Justice Waite.

    Dissenting: Justice Harlan.

21. Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 479, Sec. 2).
        Provision that ``if the party [i.e., a person stealing property 
from the United States] has been convicted, then the judgment against 
him shall be conclusive evidence in the prosecution against [the] 
receiver that the property of the United States therein described has 
been embezzled, stolen, or purloined,'' held to contravene the Sixth 
Amendment.

    Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47 (1899).

    Concurring: Justices Harlan, Gray, Shiras, White and Peckham, and 
Chief Justice Fuller.

[[Page 2006]]


    Dissenting: Justices Brown and McKenna.

22. Act of July 12, 1876 (19 Stat. 80, Sec. 6, in part).
        Provision that ``postmasters of the first, second, and third 
classes . . . may be removed by the President by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate,'' held to infringe the executive power under 
Article II, Sec. 1, clause 1.

    Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Taft, and Justices Van Devanter, 
Sutherland, Butler, Sanford, and Stone.

    Dissenting: Justices Holmes, McReynolds and Brandeis.

23. Act of August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 411).
        Directive, in a provision for the purchase or condemnation of a 
certain lock and dam in the Monongahela River, that ``. . . in 
estimating the sum to be paid by the United States, the franchise of 
said corporation to collect tolls shall not be considered or estimated 
. . . ,'' held to contravene the Fifth Amendment.

    Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893).

24. Act of May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. 25, Sec. 4).
        Provision of a Chinese exclusion act, that Chinese persons 
``convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in 
the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor for a period not 
exceeding 1 year and thereafter removed from the United States . . . 
(such conviction and judgment being had before a justice, judge, or 
commissioner upon a summary hearing), held to contravene the Fifth and 
Sixth Amendments.

    Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896).

    Concurring: Justices Shiras, Harlan, Gray, Brown, White, and 
Peckham, and Chief Justice Fuller.

    Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justice Field.

25. Joint Resolution of August 4, 1894 (28 Stat. 1018, No. 41).
        Provision authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to approve a 
second lease of certain land by an Indian chief in Minnesota (granted to 
lessor's ancestor by art. 9 of a treaty with the Chippewa Indians), held 
an interference with judicial interpretation of treaties under Article 
III, Sec. 2, clause 1 (and repugnant to the Fifth Amendment).

    Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899).

26. Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 553-60, Sec. Sec. 27-37).
        Income tax provisions of the tariff act of 1894. ``The tax 
imposed by Sec. Sec. 27 and 37, inclusive . . . so far as it falls on 
the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax 
within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore, unconstitutional 
and void because not apportioned according to representation [Article I, 
Sec. 2, clause 3],

[[Page 2007]]
all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are 
necessarily invalid'' (158 U.S. 601, 637).

    Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and 
rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Fuller, and Justices Gray, Brewer, Brown, 
Shiras, Jackson.

    Concurring specially: Justice Field.

    Dissenting: Justices White and Harlan.

27. Act of January 30, 1897, (29 Stat. 506).
        Prohibition on sale of liquor ``. . . to any Indian to whom 
allotment of land has been made while the title to the same shall be 
held in trust by the Government. . . ,'' held a police regulation 
infringing state powers, and not warranted by the commerce clause, 
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3.

    Matter of Heff, 197 U.S. 488 (1905), overruled in United States v. 
Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916).

    Concurring: Justices Brewer, Brown, White, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, 
and Day, and Chief Justice Fuller.

    Dissenting: Justice Harlan.

28. Act of June 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 428).
        Section 10, penalizing ``any employer subject to the provisions 
of this act'' who should ``threaten any employee with loss of employment 
. . . because of his membership in . . . a labor corporation, 
association, or organization'' (the act being applicable ``to any common 
carrier . . . engaged in the transportation of passengers or property 
. . . from one State . . . to another State . . . ,'' etc.), held an 
infringement of the Fifth Amendment and not supported by the commerce 
clause.

    Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908).

    Concurring: Justices Harlan, Brewer, White, Peckham, and Day, and 
Chief Justice Fuller.

    Dissenting: Justices McKenna and Holmes.

29. Act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 448, 459).
        Stamp tax on foreign bills of lading, held a tax on exports in 
violation of Article I, Sec. 9.

    Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283 (1901).

    Concurring: Justices Brewer, Brown, Shiras, Peckham, and Chief 
Justice Fuller.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Gray, White, and McKenna.

30. Same (30 Stat. 448, 460).
        Tax on charter parties, as applied to shipments exclusively from 
ports in United States to foreign ports, held a tax on exports in 
violation of Article I, Sec. 9.

    United States v. Hvoslef, 237 U.S. 1 (1915).


[[Page 2008]]


31. Same (30 Stat. 448, 461).
        Stamp tax on policies of marine insurance on exports, held a tax 
on exports in violation of Article I, Sec. 9.

    Thames & Mersey Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 237 U.S. 19 
(1915).

32. Act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 359, Sec. 171).
        Section of the Alaska Code providing for a six-person jury in 
trials for misdemeanors, held repugnant to the Sixth Amendment, 
requiring ``jury'' trial of crimes.

    Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905).

    Concurring: Justices White, Brewer, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, and 
Day, and Chief Justice Fuller.

    Concurring specially: Justices Harlan and Brown.

33. Act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1341, Sec. 935).
        Section of the District of Columbia Code granting the same right 
of appeal, in criminal cases, to the United States or the District of 
Columbia as to the defendant, but providing that a verdict was not to be 
set aside for error found in rulings during trial, held an attempt to 
take an advisory opinion, contrary to Article III, Sec. 2.

    United States v. Evans, 213 U.S. 297 (1909).

34. Act of June 11, 1906 (34 Stat. 232).
        Act providing that ``every common carrier engaged in trade or 
commerce in the District of Columbia . . . or between the several States 
. . . shall be liable to any of its employees . . . for all damages 
which may result from the negligence of any of its officers . . . or by 
reason of any defect . . . due to its negligence in its cars, engines 
. . . roadbed,'' etc., held not supportable under Article I, Sec. 8, 
clause 3 because it extended to intrastate as well as interstate 
commercial activities.

    The Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U.S. 463 (1908). (The act was 
upheld as to the District of Columbia in Hyde v. Southern Ry., 31 App. 
D.C. 466 (1908); and as to the Territories, in El Paso & N.E. Ry. v. 
Gutierrez, 215 U.S. 87 (1909).)

    Concurring: Justices White and Day.

    Concurring specially: Justices Peckham and Brewer and Chief Justice 
Fuller.

    Dissenting: Justices Moody, Harlan, McKenna, and Holmes.

35. Act of June 16, 1906 (34 Stat. 269, Sec. 2).
        Provision of Oklahoma Enabling Act restricting relocation of the 
State capital prior to 1913, held not supportable by Article IV, Sec. 3, 
authorizing admission of new States.

    Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911).

    Concurring: Justices Lurton, White, Harlan, Day, Hughes, Van 
Devanter, and Lamar.

    Dissenting: Justices McKenna and Holmes.


[[Page 2009]]


36. Act of February 20, 1907 (34 Stat. 889, Sec. 3).
        Provision in the Immigration Act of 1907 penalizing ``whoever 
. . . shall keep, maintain, control, support, or harbor in any house or 
other place, for the purpose of prostitution . . . any alien woman or 
girl, within 3 years after she shall have entered the United States,'' 
held an exercise of police power not within the control of Congress over 
immigration (whether drawn from the commerce clause or based on inherent 
sovereignty).

    Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909).

    Concurring: Justices Brewer, White, Peckham, McKenna, and Day, and 
Chief Justice Fuller.

    Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Harlan, and Moody.

37. Act of March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. 1028).
        Provisions authorizing certain Indians ``to institute their 
suits in the Court of Claims to determine the validity of any acts of 
Congress passed since . . . 1902, insofar as said acts . . . attempt to 
increase or extend the restrictions upon alienation . . . of allotments 
of lands of Cherokee citizens . . . ,'' and giving a right of appeal to 
the Supreme Court, held an attempt to enlarge the judicial power 
restricted by Article III, Sec. 2, to cases and controversies.

    Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).

38. Act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 313, Sec. 4).
        Provision making locally taxable ``all land [of Indians of the 
Five Civilized Tribes] from which restrictions have been or shall be 
removed,'' held a violation of the Fifth Amendment, in view of the Atoka 
Agreement, embodied in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, providing tax-
exemption for allotted lands while title in original allottee, not 
exceeding 21 years.

    Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912).

39. Act of February 9, 1909, Sec. 2, 35 Stat. 614, as amended.
        Provision of Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act creating a 
presumption that possessor of cocaine knew of its illegal importation 
into the United States held, in light of the fact that more cocaine is 
produced domestically than is brought into the country and in absence of 
any showing that defendant could have known his cocaine was imported, if 
it was, inapplicable to support conviction from mere possession of 
cocaine.

    Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970).

    Concurring specially: Justices Black and Douglas.

40. Act of August 19, 1911 (37 Stat. 28).
        A proviso in Sec. 8 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act fixing 
a maximum authorized expenditure by a candidate for Senator ``in any

[[Page 2010]]
campaign for his nomination and election,'' as applied to a primary 
election, held not supported by Article I, Sec. 4, giving Congress power 
to regulate the manner of holding elections for Senators and 
Representatives.

    Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921), overruled in United 
States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).

    Concurring: Justices McReynolds, McKenna, Holmes, Day, and Van 
Devanter.

    Concurring specially: Justices Pitney, Brandeis, and Clarke.

    Dissenting: Chief Justice White (concurring in part).

41. Act of June 18, 1912 (37 Stat. 136, Sec. 8).
        Part of Sec. 8 giving Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia 
(proceeding upon information) concurrent jurisdiction of desertion cases 
(which were, by law, punishable by fine or imprisonment in the workhouse 
at hard labor for 1 year), held invalid under the Fifth Amendment, which 
gives right to presentment by a grand jury in case of infamous crimes.

    United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922).

    Concurring: Justices McKenna, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, and 
McReynolds.

    Dissenting: Justices Brandeis, Holmes, and Chief Justice Taft.

42. Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 988, part of par. 64).
        Provision of the District of Columbia Public Utility Commission 
Act authorizing appeal to the United States Supreme Court from decrees 
of the District of Columbia Court Appeals modifying valuation decisions 
of the Utilities Commission, held an attempt to extend the appellate 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to cases not strictly judicial within 
the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2.

    Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923).

43. Act of September 1, 1916 (39 Stat. 675).
        The original Child Labor Law, providing ``that no producer . . . 
shall ship . . . in interstate commerce . . . any article or commodity 
the product of any mill . . . in which within 30 days prior to the 
removal of such product therefrom children under the age of 14 years 
have been employed or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any day or 
more than 6 days in any week . . . ,'' held not within the commerce 
power of Congress.

    Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).

    Concurring: Justices Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, and McReynolds, and 
Chief Justice White.

    Dissenting: Justices Holmes, McKenna, Brandeis, and Clarke.

44. Act of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 757, Sec. 2(a), in part).
        Provision of the income tax law of 1916, that a ``stock dividend 
shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value,'' held 
invalid (in spite of the Sixteenth Amendment) as an attempt to tax

[[Page 2011]]
something not actually income, without regard to apportionment under 
Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3.

    Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

    Concurring: Justices Pitney, McKenna, Van Devanter, and McReynolds, 
and Chief Justice White.

    Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Day, Brandeis, Clarke.

45. Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 395).
        The amendment of Sec. Sec. 24 and 256 of the Judicial Code 
(which prescribe jurisdiction of district courts) ``saving . . . to 
claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen's compensation law 
of any State,'' held an attempt to transfer federal legislative powers 
to the States--the Constitution, by Article III, Sec. 2, and Article I, 
Sec. 8, having adopted rules of general maritime law.

    Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149 (1920).

    Concurring: Justices McReynolds, McKenna, Day and Van Devanter, and 
Chief Justice White.

    Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Pitney, Brandeis, and Clarke.

46. Act of September 19, 1918 (40 Stat. 960).
        That part of the Minimum Wage Law of the District of Columbia 
which authorized the Wage Board ``to ascertain and declare . . . (a) 
Standards of minimum wages for women in any occupation within the 
District of Columbia, and what wages are inadequate to supply the 
necessary cost of living to any such women workers to maintain them in 
good health and to protect their morals . . . ,'' held to interfere with 
freedom of contract under the Fifth Amendment.

    Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), overruled in 
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

    Concurring: Justices Sutherland, McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds, 
and Butler.

    Dissenting: Chief Justice Taft, and Justices Sanford, and Holmes.

47. Act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1065, Sec. 213, in part).
        That part of Sec. 213 of the of Revenue Act of 1919 which 
provided that ``. . . for the purposes of the title . . . the term 
`gross income' . . . includes gains, profits, and income derived from 
salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service (including in the 
case of . . . judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United 
States . . . the compensation received as such) . . .'' as applied to a 
judge in office when the act was passed, held a violation of the 
guaranty of judges' salaries, in Article III, Sec. 1.

    Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).

    Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925), held it invalid as applied to 
a judge taking office subsequent to the date of the act. Both cases were 
overruled by O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).

    Concurring: Justices Van Devanter, McKenna, Day, Pitney, McReynolds, 
and Clarke, and Chief Justice White.

[[Page 2012]]


    Dissenting: Justices Holmes and Brandeis.

48. Act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1097, Sec. 402(c)).
        That part of the estate tax law providing that the ``gross 
estate'' of a decedent should include value of all property ``to the 
extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time 
made a transfer or with respect to which he had at any time created a 
trust, in comtemplation of or intended to take effect in possession or 
enjoyment at or after his death (whether such transfer or trust is made 
or created before or after the passage of this act), except in case of a 
bona fide sale . . .'' as applied to a transfer of property made prior 
to the act and intended to take effect ``in possession or enjoyment'' at 
death of grantor, but not in fact testamentary or designed to evade 
taxation, held confiscatory, contrary to Fifth Amendment.

    Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927).

    Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and 
Butler, and Chief Justice Taft.

    Concurring specially (only in the result): Justices Holmes, 
Brandeis, Sanford, and Stone.

49. Act of February 24, 1919, title XII (40 Stat. 1138, entire title).
        The Child Labor Tax Act, providing that ``every person . . . 
operating . . . any . . . factory . . . in which children under the age 
of 14 years have been employed or permitted to work . . . shall pay 
. . . in addition to all other taxes imposed by law, an excise tax 
equivalent to 10 percent of the entire net profits received . . . for 
such year from the sale . . . of the product of such . . . factory 
. . .,'' held beyond the taxing power under Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1, 
and an infringement of state authority.

    Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (Child Labor Tax Case), 259 U.S. 20 
(1922).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Taft, and Justices McKenna, Holmes, Day, 
Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, and Brandeis.

    Dissenting: Justice Clarke.

50. Act of October 22, 1919 (41 Stat. 298, Sec. 2), amending Act of 
        August 10, 1917 (40 Stat. 277, Sec. 4).
        (a) Sec. 4 of the Lever Act, providing in part ``that it is 
hereby made unlawful for any person willfully . . . to make any unjust 
or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any 
necessaries . . . and fixing a penalty, held invalid to support an 
indictment for charging an unreasonable price on sale--as not setting up 
an ascertainable standard of guilt within the requirement of the Sixth 
Amendment.

    United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921).

    Concurring: Chief Justice White, and Justices McKenna, Holmes, Van 
Devanter, McReynolds, and Clarke.

    Concurring specially: Justices Pitney and Brandeis.


[[Page 2013]]


        (b) That provision of Sec. 4 making it unlawful ``to conspire, 
combine, agree, or arrange with any other person to . . . exact 
excessive prices for any necessaries'' and fixing a penalty, held 
invalid to support an indictment, on the reasoning of the Cohen Grocery 
case.

    Weeds, Inc. v. United States, 255 U.S. 109 (1921).

    Concurring: Chief Justice White, and Justices McKenna, Holmes, Van 
Devanter, McReynolds, and Clarke.

    Concurring specially: Justices Pitney and Brandeis.

51. Act of August 24, 1921 (42 Stat. 187, Future Trading Act).
        (a) Sec. 4 (and interwoven regulations) providing a ``tax of 20 
cents a bushel on every bushel involved therein, upon each contract of 
sale of grain for future delivery, except . . . where such contracts are 
made by or through a member of a board of trade which has been 
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as a `contract market' 
. . .,'' held not within the taxing power under Article I, Sec. 8.

    Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922).

        (b) Sec. 3, providing ``That in addition to the taxes now 
imposed by law there is hereby levied a tax amounting to 20 cents per 
bushel on each bushel involved therein, whether the actual commodity is 
intended to be delivered or only nominally referred to, upon each . . . 
option for a contract either of purchase or sale of grain . . . ,'' held 
invalid on the same reasoning.

    Trusler v. Crooks, 269 U.S. 475 (1926).

52. Act of November 23, 1921 (42 Stat. 261, 245, in part).
        Provision of Revenue Act of 1921 abating the deduction (4 
percent of mean reserves) allowed from taxable income of life insurance 
companies in general by the amount of interest on their tax-exempts, and 
so according no relative advantage to the owners of the tax-exempt 
securities, held to destroy a guaranteed exemption.

    National Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 508 (1928).

    Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler, 
and Sanford, and Chief Justice Taft.

    Dissenting: Justices Brandeis, Holmes, and Stone.

53. Act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 634).
        A second attempt to amend Sec. Sec. 24 and 256 of the Judicial 
Code, relating to jurisdiction of district courts, by saving ``to 
claimants for compensation for injuries to or death of persons other 
than the master or members of the crew of a vessel, their rights and 
remedies under the workmen's compensation law of any State . . .'' held 
invalid on authority of Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart.

    Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219 (1924).

    Concurring: Justices McReynolds, McKenna, Holmes, Van Devanter, 
Sutherland, Butler, and Sanford, and Chief Justice Taft.

[[Page 2014]]


    Dissenting: Justice Brandeis.

54. Act of June 2, 1924 (43 Stat. 313).
        The gift tax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1924, applicable 
to gifts made during the calendar year, were held invalid under the 
Fifth Amendment insofar as they applied to gifts made before passage of 
the act.

    Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440 (1928).

    Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Sanford, Van Devanter, Sutherland, 
and Butler, and Chief Justice Taft.

    Dissenting: Justices Holmes, Brandeis, and Stone.

55. Act of February 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 70, Sec. 302, in part).
        Stipulation creating a conclusive presumption that gifts made 
within two years prior to the death of the donor were made in 
contemplation of death of donor and requiring the value thereof to be 
included in computing the death transfer tax on decedent's estate was 
held to effect an invalid deprivation of property without due process.

    Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932).

    Concurring: Justices Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler, 
and Roberts, and Chief Justice Hughes.

    Dissenting: Justices Stone and Brandeis.

56. Act of February 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 95, Sec. 701).
        Provision imposing a special excise tax of $1,000 on liquor 
dealers operating in States where such business is illegal, was held a 
penalty, without constitutional support following repeal of the 
Eighteenth Amendment.

    United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935).

    Concurring: Justices Roberts, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, 
and Butler, and Chief Justice Hughes.

    Dissenting: Justices Cardozo, Brandeis, and Stone.

57. Act of March 20, 1933 (48 Stat. 11, Sec. 17, in part).
        Clause in the Economy Act of 1933 providing ``. . . all laws 
granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term war risk insurance are 
hereby repealed,'' held invalid to abrogate an outstanding contract of 
insurance, which is a vested right protected by the Fifth Amendment.

    Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934).

58. Act of May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 31).
        Agricultural Adjustment Act providing for processing taxes on 
agricultural commodities and benefit payments therefore to farmers, held 
not within the taxing power under Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1.

    United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

    Concurring: Justices Roberts, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, 
and Butler, and Chief Justice Hughes.

[[Page 2015]]


    Dissenting: Justices Stone, Brandeis, and Cardozo.

59. Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933 (48 Stat. 113, Sec. 1).
        Abrogation of gold clause in Government obligations, held a 
repudiation of the pledge implicit in the power to borrow money (Article 
I, Sec. 8, clause 2), and within the prohibition of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, against questioning the validity of the public debt. (The 
majority of the Court, however, held plaintiff not entitled to recover 
under the circumstances.)

    Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Brandeis, Roberts, 
and Cardozo.

    Concurring specially: Justice Stone.

    Dissenting: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and 
Butler.

60. Act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 195, the National Industrial Recovery 
        Act).

        (a) Title I, except Sec. 9.
        Provisions relating to codes of fair competition, authorized to 
be approved by the President in his discretion ``to effectuate the 
policy'' of the act, held invalid as a delegation of legislative power 
(Article I, Sec. 1) and not within the commerce power (Article I, 
Sec. 8, clause 3).

    Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Van Devanter, 
McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, and Roberts.

    Concurring specially: Justices Cardozo and Stone.

        (b) Sec. 9(c).
        Clause of the oil regulation section authorizing the President 
``to prohibit the transportation in interstate . . . commerce of 
petroleum . . . produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the 
amount permitted . . . by any State law . . .'' and prescribing a 
penalty for violation of orders issued thereunder, held invalid as a 
delegation of legislative power.

    Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Van Devanter, 
McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Stone, and Roberts.

    Dissenting: Justice Cardozo.

61. Act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 307, Sec. 13).
        Temporary reduction of 15 percent in retired pay of judges, 
retired from service but subject to performance of judicial duties under 
the Act of March 1, 1929 (45 Stat. 1422), was held a violation of the 
guaranty of judges' salaries in Article III, Sec. 1.

    Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339 (1934).


[[Page 2016]]


62. Act of April 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 646 Sec. 6), amending Sec. 5(i) of 
        Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933.
        Provision for conversion of state building and loan associations 
into federal associations, upon vote of 51 percent of the votes cast at 
a meeting of stockholders called to consider such action, held an 
encroachment on reserved powers of State.

    Hopkins Savings Ass'n v. Cleary, 296 U.S. 315 (1935).

63. Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 798).
        Provision for readjustment of municipal indebtedness, though 
``adequately related'' to the bankruptcy power, was held invalid as an 
interference with state sovereignty.

    Ashton v. Cameron County Dist., 298 U.S. 513 (1936).

    Concurring: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler, 
and Roberts.

    Dissenting: Justices Cardozo, Brandeis, and Stone, and Chief Justice 
Hughes.

64. Act of June 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 1283).
        The Railroad Retirement Act, establishing a detailed compulsory 
retirement system for employees of carriers subject to the Interstate 
Commerce Act, held, not a regulation of commerce within the meaning of 
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3, and violative of the due process clause 
(Fifth Amendment).

    Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Alton Ry., 295 U.S. 330 (1935).

    Concurring: Justices Roberts, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, 
and Butler.

    Dissenting: Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Brandeis, Stone, and 
Cardozo.

65. Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1289, ch. 869).
        The Frazier-Lemke Act, adding subsection (s) to Sec. 75 of the 
Bankruptcy Act, designed to preserve to mortgagors the ownership and 
enjoyment of their farm property and providing specifically, in 
paragraph 7, that a bankrupt left in possession has the option at any 
time within 5 years of buying at the appraised value--subject meanwhile 
to no monetary obligation other than payment of reasonable rental, held 
a violation of property rights, under the Fifth Amendment.

    Louisville Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935).

66. Act of August 24, 1935 (48 Stat. 750).
        Amendments of Agricultural Adjustment Act held not within the 
taxing power, the amendments not having cured the defects of the 
original act held unconstitutional in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 
1 (1936).

    Rickert Rice Mills v. Fontenot, 297 U.S. 110 (1936).


[[Page 2017]]


67. Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 991).
        Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, held to impose, not a 
tax within Article I, Sec. 8, but a penalty not sustained by the 
commerce clause (Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3).

    Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

    Concurring: Justices Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler, 
and Roberts.

    Concurring specially: Chief Justice Hughes.

    Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Cardozo, 
Brandeis, and Stone.

68. Act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040).
        Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, Sec. 301(f), 
prohibiting the refusal to permit entry or inspection of premises by 
federal officers held void for vagueness and as violative of the due 
process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    United States v. Cardiff, 344 U.S. 174 (1952).

    Concurring: Justices Douglas, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, 
Clark, and Minton, and Chief Justice Vinson.

    Dissenting: Justice Burton.

69. Act of June 30, 1938 (52 Stat. 1251).
        Federal Firearms Act, Sec. 2(f), establishing a presumption of 
guilt based on a prior conviction and present possession of a firearm, 
held to violate the test of due process under the Fifth Amendment.

    Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 (1943).

    Concurring: Justices Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, and 
Rutledge, and Chief Justice Stone.

    Concurring specially: Justices Black and Douglas.

70. Act of August 10, 1939 (Sec. 201(d), 53 Stat. 1362, as amended, 42 
        U.S.C. Sec. 402(g)).
        Provision of Social Security Act that grants survivors' benefits 
based on the earnings of a deceased husband and father covered by the 
Act to his widow and to the couple's children in her care but that 
grants benefits based on the earnings of a covered deceased wife and 
mother only to the minor children and not to the widower held violative 
of the right to equal protection secured by the Fifth Amendment's due 
process clause, since it unjustifiably discriminates against female wage 
earners required to pay social security taxes by affording them less 
protection for their survivors than is provided for male wage earners.

    Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975).

71. Act of October 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1169 Sec. 401(g)); as amended by 
        Act of January 20, 1944 (58 Stat. 4, Sec. 1).
        Provision of Aliens and Nationality Code (8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1481(a)(8)), derived from the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, 
that citizen

[[Page 2018]]
ship shall be lost upon conviction by court martial and dishonorable 
discharge for deserting the armed services in time of war, held invalid 
as imposing a cruel and unusual punishment barred by the Eighth 
Amendment and not authorized by the war powers conferred by Article I, 
Sec. 8, clauses 11 to 14.

    Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Warren and Justice Whittaker.

    Concurring specially: Justices Black, Douglas, and Brennan.

    Dissenting: Justices Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, and Harlan.

72. Act of November 15, 1943 (57 Stat. 450).
        Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943, Sec. 304, providing 
that no salary should be paid to certain named federal employees out of 
moneys appropriated, held to violate Article I, Sec. 9, clause 3, 
forbidding enactment of bill of attainder or ex post facto law.

    United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946).

    Concurring: Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge, and Burton, 
and Chief Justice Stone.

    Concurring specially: Justices Frankfurter and Reed.

73. Act of September 27, 1944 (58 Stat. 746, Sec. 401(J)); and Act of 
        June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 267-268, Sec. 349(a)(10)).
        Sec. 401(J) of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940, added in 
1944, and Sec. 49(a)(10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 
depriving one of citizenship, without the procedural safeguards 
guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, for the offense of leaving 
or remaining outside the country, in time of war or national emergency, 
to evade military service held invalid.

    Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).

    Concurring: Justices Goldberg, Black, Douglas, and Chief Justice 
Warren.

    Concurring specially: Justice Brennan.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White.

74. Act of July 31, 1946 (ch. 707, Sec. 7, 60 Stat. 719).
        District court decision holding invalid under First and Fifth 
Amendments statute prohibiting parades or assemblages on United States 
Capitol grounds is summarily affirmed.

    Chief of Capitol Police v. Jeanette Rankin Brigade, 409 U.S. 972 
(1972).

75. Act of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 760).
        Provision of Lindberg Kidnapping Act which provided for the 
imposition of the death penalty only if recommended by the jury held 
unconstitutional inasmuch as it penalized the assertion of a defendant's 
Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.

    United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968).

    Concurring: Justices Stewart, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Fortas, and 
Chief Justice Warren.

[[Page 2019]]


    Dissenting: Justices White and Black.

76. Act of August 18, 1949 (63 Stat. 617, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 13k).
        Provision, insofar as it applies to the public sidewalks 
surrounding the Supreme Court building, which bars the display of any 
flag, banner, or device designed to bring into public notice any party, 
organization, or movement, held violative of the free speech clause of 
the First Amendment.

    United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).

    Concurring: Justices White, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, 
O'Connor, and Chief Justice Burger.

    Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Marshall and 
Stevens.

77. Act of May 5, 1950 (64 Stat. 107).
        Article 3(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, subjecting 
civilian ex-servicemen to court martial for crime committed while in 
military service, held to violate Article III, Sec. 2, and the Fifth and 
Sixth Amendments.

    Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955).

    Concurring: Justices Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and 
Chief Justice Warren.

    Dissenting: Justices Reed, Burton, and Minton.

78. Act of May 5, 1950 (64 Stat. 107).
        Insofar as Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
subjects civilian dependents accompanying members of the armed forces 
overseas in time of peace to trial, in capital cases, by court martial, 
it is violative of Article III, Sec. 2, and the Fifth and Sixth 
Amendments.

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

    Concurring: Justices Black, Douglas, and Chief Justice Warren.

    Concurring specifically: Justices Frankfurter and Harlan.

    Dissenting: Justices Clark and Burton.

        Insofar as the aforementioned provision is invoked in time of 
peace for the trial of noncapital offenses committed on land bases 
overseas by employees of the armed forces who have not been inducted or 
who have not voluntarily enlised therein, it is violative of the Sixth 
Amendment.

    McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960).

    Concurring: Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, and Brennan, and Chief 
Justice Warren.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Frankfurter.

    Concurring in Part and dissenting in Part: Justices Whittaker and 
Stewart.

        Insofar as the aforementioned provision is invoked in time of 
peace for the trial of noncapital offenses committed by civilian 
dependents accompanying members of the armed forces overseas, it is 
violative of Article III, Sec. 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.


[[Page 2020]]


    Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960).

    Concurring: Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, and Brennan, and Chief 
Justice Warren.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Frankfurter.

    Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Whittaker and 
Stewart.

        Insofar as the aforementioned provision is invoked in time of 
peace for the trial of a capital offense committed by a civilian 
employee of the armed forces overseas, it is violative of Article III, 
Sec. 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

    Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960).

    Concurring: Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, and Brennan, and Chief 
Justice Warren.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan and Frankfurter.

    Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Justices Whittaker and 
Stewart.

79. Act of August 16, 1950 (64 Stat. 451, as amended).
        Statutory scheme authorizing the Postmaster General to close the 
mails to distributors of obscene materials held unconstitutional in the 
absence of procedural provisions to assure prompt judicial determination 
that protected materials were not being restrained.

    Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971).

80. Act of August 28, 1950 (Sec. 202(c)(1)(D), 64 Stat. 483, 42 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 402(c)(1)(C)).
        District court decision holding invalid as a violation of the 
equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause a 
Social Security provision entitling a husband to insurance benefits 
through his wife's benefits, provided he received at least one-half of 
his support from her at the time she became entitled, but requiring no 
such showing of support for the wife to qualify for benefits through her 
husband, is summarily affirmed.

    Califano v. Silbowitz, 430 U.S. 934 (1977).

81. Act of August 28, 1950 (Sec. 202(f)(1)(E), 64 Stat. 485, 42 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 402(f)(1)(D)).
        Social Security Act provision awarding survivor's benefits based 
on earnings of a deceased wife to widower only if he was receiving at 
least half of his support from her at the time of her death, whereas 
widow receives benefits regardless of dependency, held violative of 
equal protection element of Fifth Amendment's due process clause because 
of its impermissible sex classification.

    Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977).

    Concurring: Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Powell.

    Concurring specially: Justice Stevens.

    Dissenting: Justices Rehnquist, Stewart, Blackmun, and Chief Justice 
Burger.


[[Page 2021]]


82. Act of September 23, 1950 (Title I, Sec. 5, 64 Stat. 992).
        Provision of Subversive Activities Control Act making it 
unlawful for member of Communist front organization to work in a defense 
plant held to be an overbroad infringement of the right of association 
protected by the First Amendment.

    United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, 
Stewart, and Fortas.

    Concurring specially: Justice Brennan.

    Dissenting: Justices White and Harlan.

83. Act of September 23, 1950 (64 Stat. 993, Sec. 6).
        Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, Sec. 6, providing 
that any member of a Communist organization, which has registered or has 
been ordered to register, commits a crime if he attempts to obtain or 
use a passport, held violative of due process under the Fifth Amendment.

    Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964).

    Concurring: Justices Goldberg, Brennan, and Stewart, and Chief 
Justice Warren.

    Concurring specially: Justices Black and Douglas.

    Dissenting: Justices Clark, Harlan, and White.

84. Act of September 28, 1950 (Title I, Sec. Sec. 7, 8, 64 Stat. 993).
        Provisions of Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 
requiring in lieu of registration by the Communist Party registration by 
Party members may not be applied to compel registration by, or to 
prosecute for refusal to register, alleged members who have asserted 
their privilege against self-incrimination, inasmuch as registration 
would expose such persons to criminal prosecution under other laws.

    Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 
(1965).

85. Act of October 30, 1951 Sec. 5(f)(ii), 65 Stat. 683, 45 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 231a(c)(3)(ii)).
        Provision of Railroad Retirement Act similar to section voided 
in Goldfarb (no. 81, supra).

    Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Kalina, 431 U.S. 909 (1977).

86. Act of June 27, 1952 (Title III, 349, 66 Stat. 267).
        Provision of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 providing 
for revocation of United States citizenship of one who votes in a 
foreign election held unconstitutional under Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth 
Amendment.

    Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).

    Concurring: Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas, and Chief 
Justice Warren.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White.

87. Act of June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 269, Sec. 352(a)(1)).
        Sec. 352(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 
depriving a naturalized person of citizenship for ``having a continuous

[[Page 2022]]
residence for three years'' in state of his birth or prior nationality, 
held violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).

    Concurring: Justices Douglas, Black, Stewart, and Goldberg, and 
Chief Justice Warren.

    Dissenting: Justices Clark, Harlan, and White.

88. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 525, Int. Rev. Code of 1954, 
        Sec. Sec. 4401-4423).
        Provisions of tax laws requiring gamblers to pay occupational 
and excise taxes may not be used over an assertion of one's privilege 
against self-incrimination either to compel extensive reporting of 
activities, leaving the registrant subject to prosecution under the laws 
of all the States with the possible exception of Nevada, or to prosecute 
for failure to register and report, because the scheme abridged the 
Fifth Amendment privilege.

    Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United 
States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968).

    Concurring: Justices Harlan, Black, Douglas, White, and Fortas.

    Concurring specially: Justices Brennan and Stewart.

    Dissenting: Chief Justice Warren.

89. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 560, Marijuana Tax Act, 
        Sec. Sec. 4741, 4744, 4751, 4753).
        Provisions of tax laws requiring possessors of marijuana to 
register and to pay a transfer tax may not be used over an assertion of 
the privilege against self-incrimination to compel registration or to 
prosecute for failure to register.

    Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969).

    Concurring specially: Chief Justice Warren and Justice Stewart.

90. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 728, Int. Rev. Code of 1954, 
        Sec. Sec. 5841, 5851).
        Provisions of tax laws requiring the possessor of certain 
firearms, which it is made illegal to receive or to possess, to register 
with the Treasury Department may not be used over an assertion of the 
privilege against self-incrimination to prosecute one for failure to 
register or for possession of an unregistered firearm since the 
statutory scheme abridges the Fifth Amendment privilege.

    Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).

    Concurring: Justices Harlan, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, 
White, and Fortas.

    Dissenting: Chief Justice Warren.

91. Act of August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 867, Int. Rev. Code of 1954, 
        Sec. 7302).
        Provision of tax laws providing for forfeiture of property used 
in violating internal revenue laws may not be constitutionally used in 
face of invocation of privilege against self-incrimination to condemn 
money in possession of gambler who had failed to comply with the

[[Page 2023]]
registration and reporting scheme held void in Marchetti v. United 
States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).

    United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971).

    Concurring: Justices Harlan, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall.

    Dissenting: Justices White, Stewart, Blackmun, and Chief Justice 
Burger.

92. Act of July 18, 1956 (Sec. 106, Stat. 570).
        Provision of Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act creating a 
presumption that possessor of marijuana knew of its illegal importation 
into the United States held, in absence of showing that all marijuana in 
United States was of foreign origin and that domestic users could know 
that their marijuana was more likely than not of foreign origin, 
unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969).

    Concurring specially: Justice Black.

93. Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 65, Uniform Code of Military 
        Justice, Articles 80, 130, 134).
        Servicemen may not be charged under the Act and tried in 
military courts because of the commission of non-service connected 
crimes committed off-post and off-duty which are subject to civilian 
court jurisdiction where the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are 
applicable.

    O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969), overruled in Solorio v. 
United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987).

    Concurring: Justices Douglas, Black Brennan, Fortas, and Marshall, 
and Chief Justice Warren.

    Dissenting: Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White.

94. Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 35, Sec. 772(f)).
        Proviso of statute permitting the wearing of United States 
military apparel in theatrical productions only if the portrayal does 
not tend to discredit the armed force imposes an unconstitutional 
restraint upon First Amendment freedoms and precludes a prosecution 
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 702 for unauthorized wearing of uniform in a street 
skit disrespectful of the military.

    Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970).

95. Act of September 2, 1958 (Sec. 5601(b)(1), 72 Stat. 1399).
        Provision of Internal Revenue Code creating a presumption that 
one's presence at the site of an unregistered still shall be sufficient 
for conviction under a statute punishing possession, custody, or control 
of an unregistered still unless defendant otherwise explained his 
presence at the site to the jury held unconstitutional because the 
presumption is not a legitimate, rational, or reasonable inference that 
defendant was engaged in one of the specialized functions proscribed by 
the statute.

    United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136 (1965).


[[Page 2024]]


96. Act of September 2, 1958 (Sec. 1(25)(B), 72 Stat. 1446), and Act of 
        September 7, 1962 (Sec. 401, 76 Stat. 469).
        Federal statutes providing that spouses of female members of the 
Armed Forces must be dependent in fact in order to qualify for certain 
dependent's benefits, whereas spouses of male members are statutorily 
deemed dependent and automatically qualified for allowances, whatever 
their actual status, held an invalid sex classification under the equal 
protection principles of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.

    Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).

    Concurring: Justices Brennan, Douglas, White, and Marshall.

    Concurring specially: Justices Powell and Blackmun and Chief Justice 
Burger; Justice Stewart.

    Dissenting: Justice Rehnquist.

97. Act of September 14, 1959 (Sec. 504, 73 Stat. 536).
        Provision of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 
1959 making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as 
an officer or, with the exception of clerical or custodial positions, as 
an employee of a labor union held to be a bill of attainder and 
unconstitutional.

    United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, 
Brennan, and Goldberg.

    Dissenting: Justices White, Clark, Harlan, and Stewart.

98. Act of October 11, 1962 (Sec. 305, 76 Stat. 840).
        Provision of Postal Services and Federal Employees Salary Act of 
1962 authorizing Post Office Department to detain material determined to 
be ``communist political propaganda'' and to forward it to the addressee 
only if he requested it after notification by the Department, the 
material to be destroyed otherwise, held to impose on the addressee an 
affirmative obligation which amounted to an abridgment of First 
Amendment rights.

    Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

99. Act of October 15, 1962 (76 Stat. 914).
        Provision of District of Columbia laws requiring that a person 
to be eligible to receive welfare assistance must have resided in the 
District for at least one year impermissibly classified persons on the 
basis of an assertion of the right to travel interstate and therefore 
held to violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).

    Concurring: Justices Brennan, Douglas, Stewart, White, Fortas, and 
Marshall.

    Dissenting: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black and Harlan.

100. Act of December 16, 1963 (77 Stat. 378, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 754).
        Provision of Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 which in 
effect removed restriction against religious use of facilities 
constructed

[[Page 2025]]
with federal funds after 20 years held to violate the establishment 
clause of the First Amendment inasmuch as the property will still be of 
considerable value at the end of the period and removal of the 
restriction would constitute a substantial governmental contribution to 
religion.

    Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).

101. Act of July 30, 1965 (Sec. 339, 79 Stat. 409).
        Section of Social Security Act qualifying certain illegitimate 
children for disability insurance benefits by presuming dependence but 
disqualifying other illegitimate children, regardless of dependency, if 
the disabled wage earner parent did not contribute to the child's 
support before the onset of the disability or if the child did not live 
with the parent before the onset of disability, held to deny latter 
class of children equal protection as guaranteed by the due process 
clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Jiminez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974).

    Concurring: Chief Justice Burger and Justices Douglas, Brennan, 
Stewart White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell.

    Dissenting: Justice Rehnquist.

102. Act of September 3, 1966 (Sec. 102(b), 80 Stat. 831), and Act of 
        April 8, 1974 (Sec. Sec. 6(a)(1) amending Sec. 3(d) of Act, 
        6(a)(2) amending 3 (e)(2)(C), 6(a)(5) amending Sec. 3(s)(5), and 
        6(a)(6) amending Sec. 3(x)).
        Those section of the Fair Labor Standards Act extending wage and 
hour coverage to the employees of state and local governments held 
invalid because Congress lacks the authority under the commerce clause 
to regulate employee activities in areas of traditional governmental 
functions of the States.

    National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976).

    Concurring: Justices Rehnquist, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, and Chief 
Justice Burger.

    Dissenting: Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall; Justice Stevens.

103. Act of January 2, 1968 (Sec. 163(a)(2), 81 Stat. 872).
        District court decisions holding unconstitutional under Fifth 
Amendment's due process clause section of Social Security Act that 
reduced, perhaps to zero, benefits coming to illegitimate children upon 
death of parent in order to satisfy the maximum payment due the wife and 
legitimate children are summarily affirmed.

    Richardson v. Davis, 409 U.S. 1069 (1972).

104. Act of January 2, 1968 (Sec. 203, 81 Stat. 882).
        Provision of Social Security Act extending benefits to families 
whose dependent children have been deprived of parental support because 
of the unemployment of the father but not giving benefits when the 
mother becomes unemployed held to impermissibly classify on the basis of 
sex and violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.

[[Page 2026]]


    Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979).

105. Act of June 22, 1970 (ch. III, 84 Stat. 318).
        Provision of Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 which set a 
minimum voting age qualification of 18 in state and local elections held 
to be unconstitutional because beyond the powers of Congress to 
legislate.

    Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

    Concurring: Justices Harlan, Stewart, Blackmun, and Chief Justice 
Burger.

    Concurring specially: Justice Black.

    Dissenting: Justices Douglas, Brennan, White, and Marshall.

106. Act of December 29, 1970 (Sec. 8(a), 84 Stat. 1598, 29 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 637(a)).
        Provision of Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizing 
inspections of covered work places in industry without warrants held to 
violate Fourth Amendment.

    Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978).

    Concurring: Justices White, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, and Chief 
Justice Burger.

    Dissenting: Justices Stevens, Blackmun, and Rehnquist.

107. Act of January 11, 1971, (Sec. 2, 84 Stat. 2048).
        Provision of Food Stamp Act disqualifying from participation in 
program any household containing an individual unrelated by birth, 
marriage, or adoption to any other member of the household violates the 
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973).

    Concurring: Justices Brennan, Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall, 
Blackmun, and Powell.

    Dissenting: Justice Rehnquist and Chief Justice Burger.

108. Act of January 11, 1971 (Sec. 4, 84 Stat. 2049).
        Provision of Food Stamp Act disqualifying from participation in 
program any household containing a person 18 years or older who had been 
claimed as a dependent child for income tax purposes in the present or 
preceding tax year by a taxpayer not a member of the household violates 
the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Department of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973).

    Concurring: Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Marshall.

    Dissenting: Justices Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell, and Chief Justice 
Burger.

109. Federal Election Campaign Act of February 7, 1972 (86 Stat. 3), as 
        amended by the Federal Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (88 Stat. 
        1263), adding or amending 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 608(a), 608(e), 
        and 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437c.
        Provisions of election law that forbid a candidate or the 
members of his immediate family from expending personal funds in excess 
of specified amounts, that limit to $1,000 the independent expenditures 
of any person relative to an identified candidate, and that forbid ex

[[Page 2027]]
penditures by candidates for federal office in excess of specified 
amounts violate the First Amendment speech guarantees; provisions of the 
law creating a commission to oversee enforcement of the Act are an 
invalid infringement of constitutional separation of powers in that they 
devolve responsibilities upon a commission four of whose six members are 
appointed by Congress and all six of whom are confirmed by the House of 
Representatives as well as by the Senate, not in compliance with the 
appointments clause.

    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

    Concurring: Justices Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, and 
Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Burger.

    Dissenting (expenditure provisions only): Justice White.

    Dissenting (candidate's personal funds only): Justice Marshall.

110. Act of October 1, 1976 (title II, 90 Stat. 1446); Act of October 
        12, 1979 (101(c), 93 Stat. 657)).
        Provisions of appropriations laws rolling back automatic pay 
increases for federal officers and employees is unconstitutional as to 
Article III judges because, the increases having gone into effect, they 
violate the security of compensation clause of Article III, Sec. 1.

    United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).

111. Act of November 6, 1978 (Sec. 241(a), 92 Stat. 2668, 28 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 1471)
        Assignment to judges who do not have tenure and guarantee of 
compensation protections afforded Article III judges of jurisdiction 
over all proceedings arising under or in the bankruptcy act and over all 
cases relating to proceedings under the bankruptcy act is invalid, 
inasmuch as judges without Article III protection may not receive at 
least some of this jurisdiction.

    Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 
(1982).

    Concurring: Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens.

    Concurring specially: Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor.

    Dissenting: Justices White and Powell and Chief Justice Burger.

112. Act of May 30, 1980 (94 Stat. 399, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq.) as 
        amended by the Act of October 14, 1980 (94 Stat. 1959).
        Acts of Congress applying to bankruptcy reorganization of one 
railroad and guaranteeing employee benefits is repugnant to the 
requirement of Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4, that bankruptcy legislation be 
``uniform.''

    Railroad Labor Executives Ass'n v. Gibbons, 455 U.S. 457 (1982).

113. Act of March 3, 1873 (ch. 258, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 599, recodified in 
        39 U.S.C. Sec. 3001(e)(2)).
        Comstock Act provision barring from the mails any unsolicited 
advertisement for contraceptives, as applied to circulars and flyers 
promoting prophylactics or containing information discussing the de

[[Page 2028]]
sirability and availability of prophylactics, violates the free speech 
clause of the First Amendment.

    Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983).

    Justices concurring: Marshall, White, Blackmun, Powell, and Chief 
Justice Burger.

    Justices concurring specially: Rehnquist and O'Connor; Stevens.

114. Act of Feb. 15, 1938, ch. 29, 52 Stat. 30.
        District of Columbia Code Sec. 22-1115, prohibiting the display 
of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if the sign tends to 
bring the foreign government into ``public odium'' or ``public 
disrepute,'' violates the First Amendment.

    Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988).

    Justices concurring: O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Scalia.

    Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and White and 
Blackmun.

115. Act of June 27, 1952 (ch. 477, Sec. 244(e)(2), 66 Stat. 214, 8 
        U.S.C. Sec. 1254 (c)(2).
        Provision of the immigration law that permits either House of 
Congress to veto the decision of the Attorney General to suspend the 
deportation of certain aliens violates the bicameralism and presentation 
requirements of lawmaking imposed upon Congress by Article I, 
Sec. Sec. 1 and 7.

    INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).

    Justices concurring: Chief Justice Burger, and Brennan, Marshall, 
Blackmun, and Stevens.

    Justice concurring specially: Powell.

    Justices dissenting: Rehnquist and White.

116. Act of September 2, 1958 (Pub. L. 85-921, Sec. 1, 72 Stat. 1771, 18 
        U.S.C. Sec. 504(1)).
        Exemptions from ban on photographic reproduction of currency 
``for philatelic, numismatic, educational, historical, or newsworthy 
purposes'' violates the First Amendment because it discriminates on the 
basis of the content of a publication.

    Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984).

    Justices concurring: White, Brennan, Blackmun, Marshall, Powell, 
Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Chief Justice Burger.

    Justice dissenting: Stevens.

117. Act of November 7, 1967 (Pub. L. 90-129, Sec. 201(8), 81 Stat. 
        368), as amended by Act of August 13, 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35, 
        Sec. 1229, 95 Stat. 730, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 399).
        Communications Act provision banning noncommercial educational 
stations receiving grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
from engaging in editorializing violates the First Amendment.


[[Page 2029]]


    FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984).

    Justices concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and 
O'Connor.

    Justices dissenting: White, Rehnquist, Stevens, and Chief Justice 
Burger.

118. Act of December 10, 1971 (Pub. L. 92-178, Sec. 801, 85 Stat. 570, 
        26 U.S.C Sec. 9012(f)).
        Provision of Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act limiting to 
$1,000 the amount that independent committees may expend to further the 
election of a presidential candidate financing his campaign with public 
funds is an impermissible limitation of freedom of speech and 
association protected by the First Amendment.

    FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 
(1985).

    Justices concurring: Rehnquist, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, O'Connor, 
Stevens, and Chief Justice Burger.

    Justices dissenting: White and Marshall.

119. Act of May 11, 1976, Pub. L. 92-225, Sec. 316, 90 Stat. 490, 2 
        U.S.C. Sec. 441b.
        Provision of Federal Election Campaign Act requiring that 
independent corporate campaign expenditures be financed by voluntary 
contributions to a separate segregated fund violates the First Amendment 
as applied to a corporation organized to promote political ideas, having 
no stockholders, and not serving as a front for a business corporation 
or union.

    FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986).

    Justices concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Powell, and Scalia.

    Justice concurring specially: O'Connor.

    Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices White, 
Blackmun, and Stevens.

120. Act of November 9, 1978 (Pub. L. 95-621, Sec. 202(c)(1), 92 Stat. 
        3372, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3342(c)(1).
        Decision of Court of Appeals holding unconstitutional provision 
giving either House of Congress power to veto rules of Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission on certain natural gas pricing matters is 
summarily affirmed on the authority of Chadha.

    Process Gas Consumers Group v. Consumer Energy Council, 463 U.S. 
1216 (1983).

121. Act of May 28, 1980 (Pub. L. 96-252, Sec. 21(a)), 94 Stat. 393, 15 
        U.S.C. Sec. 57a-1(a).
        Decision of Court of Appeals holding unconstitutional provision 
of FTC Improvements Act giving Congress power by concurrent resolution 
to veto final rules of the FTC is summarily affirmed on the basis of 
Chadha.

    United States Senate v. FTC, 463 U.S. 1216 (1983).


[[Page 2030]]


122. Act of Jan. 12, 1983 (Pub. L. 97-459, Sec. 207), 96 Stat. 2519, 25 
        U.S.C. Sec. 2206.
        Section of Indian Land Consolidation Act providing for escheat 
to tribe of fractionated interests in land representing less than 2% of 
a tract's total acreage violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause by 
completely abrogating rights of intestacy and devise.

    Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987).

    Justices concurring: O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, 
Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

    Justices concurring specially: Stevens and White.

123. Act of Jan. 15, 1985, (Pub. L. 99-240, Sec. 5(d)(2)(C)), 99 Stat. 
        1842, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2021e(d)(2)(C).
        ``Take-title'' incentives contained in the Low-Level Radioactive 
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, designed to encourage states to 
cooperate in the federal regulatory scheme, offend principles of 
federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment. These incentives, which 
require that non-participating states take title to waste or become 
liable for generators' damages, cross the line distinguishing 
encouragement from coercion. Congress may not simply commandeer the 
legislative and regulatory processes of the states, nor may it force a 
transfer from generators to state governments. A required choice between 
two unconstitutionally coercive regulatory techniques is also 
impermissible.

    New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992).

    Justices concurring: O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and 
Chief Justice Rehnquist.

    Justices dissenting: White, Blackmun, and Stevens.

124. Act of December 12, 1985 (Pub. L. 99-177, Sec. 251), 99 Stat. 1063, 
        2 U.S.C. Sec. 901.
        That portion of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act which authorizes the Comptroller General to determine the 
amount of spending reductions which must be accomplished each year to 
reach congressional targets and which authorizes him to report a figure 
to the President which the President must implement violates the 
constitutional separation of powers inasmuch as the Comptroller General 
is subject to congressional control (removal) and cannot be given a role 
in the execution of the laws.

    Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986).

    Justices concurring: Chief Justice Burger, and Brennan, Powell, 
Rehnquist, and O'Connor.

    Justices concurring specially: Stevens and Marshall.

    Justices dissenting: White and Blackmun.


[[Page 2031]]


125. Act of Oct. 30, 1986 (Pub. L. 99-591, title VI, Sec. 6007(f)), 100 
        Stat. 3341, 49 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2456(f).
        The Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, which 
transferred operating control of two Washington, D.C., area airports 
from the Federal Government to a regional airports authority, violates 
separation of powers principles by conditioning that transfer on the 
establishment of a Board of Review, composed of Members of Congress and 
having veto authority over actions of the airports authority's board of 
directors.

    Metropolitan Washington Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement 
of Aircraft Noise, 501 U.S. 252 (1991)

    Justices concurring: Stevens, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, 
and Souter.

    Justices dissenting: White, Marshall, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

126. Act of April 28, 1988 (Pub. L. 100-297 Sec. 6101), 102 Stat. 424, 
        47 U.S.C. Sec. 223(b)(1).
        Amendment to Communications Act of 1934 imposing an outright ban 
on ``indecent'' but not obscene messages violates the First Amendment, 
since it has not been shown to be narrowly tailored to further the 
governmental interest in protecting minors from hearing such messages.

    Sable Communications of California v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989).

127. Act of Oct. 28, 1989 (Pub. L. 101-131), 103 Stat. 777, 18 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 700.
        The Flag Protection Act of 1989, criminalizing burning and 
certain other forms of destruction of the United States flag, violates 
the First Amendment. Most of the prohibited acts involve disrespectful 
treatment of the flag, and evidence a purpose to suppress expression out 
of concern for its likely communicative impact.

    United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

    Justices concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy.

    Justices dissenting: Stevens, White, O'Connor, and Chief Justice 
Rehnquist.