Volume 424 — United States Reports

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power.

In 1962 Arizona, as lessor, and petitioner, as lessee, executed a 10-year grazing lease of certain tracts of land which had been granted to… Held: Nothing in the Enabling Act, apart, possibly, from the extent it may incorporate Arizona law by reference, prevents the usual application of Fifth Amendment protection of the outstanding leasehold interest whereby the holder of such an interest is entitled to just compensation for the value of that interest when it is taken upon…

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in Social Security benefits, and the termination of such benefits implicates due process but does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is significant in the development of American administrative law.

De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), is an abrogated case decided by the US Supreme Court on February 25, 1976, that upheld Section 2805(a) of the California Labor Code against a Federal preemption challenge.

A Mississippi regulation provides that milk and milk products from another State may be sold in Mississippi only if the other State accepts milk or milk products produced and processed in Mississippi… Held: The mandatory character of the regulation's reciprocity requirement unduly burdens the free flow of interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause and cannot be justified as a permissible exercise of any state power. Pp. 370-381.

Respondent Government trial attorneys with civil service grade GS-13 classifications requested their employing agency to reclassify their positions to grade GS-14, contending that their duties and responsibilities met the requirements for the higher grade and were identical to those of other trial attorneys classified as GS-14 in another agency, and that under the principle of "equal pay for substantially equal work" prescribed in the Classification Act, they were entitled…

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which district attorneys or prosecutors were found to have full immunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.

Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning defamation suits against public figures.

The Federal Power Commission (FPC), for the purpose of "stimulat(ing) and accelerat(ing) domestic exploration and development of natural gas… Held: An optional procedure encompassing pregranted abandonment authority intended to draw new gas supplies to the interstate market is clearly within the FPC's authority under § 7(b) to permit abandonments justified by Present Or Future public convenience or necessity, the timing of the abandonment approval being within the FPC's…

When striking members of respondent union picketed in front of their employer's leased store located in petitioner's shopping center, the shopping center's general manager… Held: Under the present state of the law the constitutional guarantee of free expression has no part to play in a case such as this, and the pickets here did not have a First Amendment right to enter the shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike against their employer. Lloyd Corp. v.

Respondents were indicted for entering a federally insured bank with intent to rob it by force and violence (Count 1) and robbing the bank by force and violence (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §… Held: A person convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (b), and (d) cannot also be convicted of receiving or possessing the robbery proceeds in violation of § 2113(c). Heflin, supra, 358 U.S., at 419-420, 79 S.Ct. 451. Pp. 547-548. 2.

Petitioner employees were discharged by respondent employer for alleged dishonesty. Respondent union, claiming that petitioners were innocent, opposed the discharges, and pursuant to the collective-bargaining contract the matter was submitted to an arbitration committee, which upheld the discharges. The collective-bargaining contract provided that a decision by the arbitration committee would be final and binding on all parties, including the employees affected.

A New York welfare statute disqualifies from the receipt of Home Relief benefits for 75 days anyone who voluntarily terminates his employment or reduces his earning capacity for the purpose of… Held: The "rebuttable presumption" provision does not deny due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 582-587.

Absent circumstances comparable in significance to those existing in Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46, examination of veniremen during Voir dire about racial prejudice is Held not constitutionally required. In the instant case, which involved the prosecution of respondent, a Negro, for violent crimes against a white security guard, respondent did not show such circumstances.

United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the U.S. Const., Amend. V protection against double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial of a defendant, who had previously requested a mistrial.

Finding that the imminent departure of respondent taxpayer Samuel Shapiro (hereinafter respondent) for Israel under an extradition order to stand trial there on… Held: The Act did not require dismissal of respondent's complaint. Pp. 624-633. (a) Whether the Commissioner has a chance of ultimately prevailing for purposes of the Williams Packing exception is a question to be resolved on the basis of the information available to the Commissioner at the time of the suit.

Held: analogously, that a witness loses the privilege by failing to claim it promptly even though the information being sought remains undisclosed when the privilege is claimed. United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, 148 (1931), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964); see Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S., at 371 .

Pursuant to an Alabama statutory procedure, a prosecuting attorney brought an in rem equity action in state court against four magazines… Held: The Alabama procedures, insofar as they precluded petitioner for litigating the obscenity vel non of New Directions as a defense to his criminal prosecution, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649; Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 93 S.Ct. 2789, 37 L.Ed.2d 745.

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a sharply divided Court held that the plaintiff, whom the local police chief had named an "active shoplifter," suffered no deprivation of liberty resulting from injury to his reputation. In the case, the court broke from precedents and restricted the definition of the constitutional right to privacy "to matters relating to 'marriage procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education".

Respondents filed a complaint alleging that petitioner's employee insurance benefits and maternity leave regulations discriminated against its women employees in violation of… Held: The District Court's order was not appealable as a final decision under § 1291. Pp. 742-744. (a) Even assuming that the order was a declaratory judgment on the issue of liability, it nevertheless left unresolved and did not finally dispose of any of the respondents' prayers for relief. P. 742.

In a class action against respondent employer and certain labor unions (of which respondent union is the successor) petitioners alleged various racially discriminatory employment practices in… Held: That petitioner Lee, the named plaintiff representing the class in question, no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of the action because he had been hired by respondent employer and later was properly discharged for cause, does not moot the case.

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extensively refined the abstention doctrine to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.

Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court upheld military regulations strictly forbidding partisan political activity on unrestricted areas of a military base (in this case, Fort Dix and Benjamin Spock's activity) against a First Amendment challenge.