American Constitutional Interpretation

(University Casebook Series) 6th

Edition Walter Murphy
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/american-constitutional-interpretation-university-case
book-series-6th-edition-walter-murphy/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Constitutional Law Aspen Casebook Sixth Edition Erwin

Chemerinsky

https://ebookmeta.com/product/constitutional-law-aspen-casebook-
sixth-edition-erwin-chemerinsky/

Civil Procedure Cases and Materials American Casebook

Series 13th Edition Jack Friedenthal

https://ebookmeta.com/product/civil-procedure-cases-and-
materials-american-casebook-series-13th-edition-jack-friedenthal/

Trade Secret Law: Cases and Materials (American

Casebook Series) 3rd Edition Rowe

https://ebookmeta.com/product/trade-secret-law-cases-and-
materials-american-casebook-series-3rd-edition-rowe/

American Constitutional Law 12th Edition Louis Fisher

https://ebookmeta.com/product/american-constitutional-law-12th-
edition-louis-fisher/
Absolute Java TM 6th Edition Walter J. Savitch

https://ebookmeta.com/product/absolute-java-tm-6th-edition-
walter-j-savitch/

American Constitutional Law : powers and liberties 7th

Edition Calvin R. Massey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/american-constitutional-law-powers-
and-liberties-7th-edition-calvin-r-massey/

Commercial Finance A Transactional Approach University

Casebook Series 1st Edition Ronald Mann

https://ebookmeta.com/product/commercial-finance-a-transactional-
approach-university-casebook-series-1st-edition-ronald-mann/

Professional Responsibility A Contemporary Approach

Interactive Casebook Series 2nd Edition Renee
Jefferson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/professional-responsibility-a-
contemporary-approach-interactive-casebook-series-2nd-edition-
renee-jefferson/

Black Light Disciplined Black Light Series Book 29 1st

Edition Livia Grant

https://ebookmeta.com/product/black-light-disciplined-black-
light-series-book-29-1st-edition-livia-grant/
 FIFTH EDITION

WALTER F. Murpry
JAMES E. FLEMING
_ Sormrios A. BARBER
_ STEPHEN MACEDO
= —

a7

ats
 ae

HHAL) .O 1HaROR Ԥ
ERI C.a Ne 4 SOtihe ovirowant
ole cial Gee iOnasovd soivis? bodgweuniit] >

%SONSTIT UTIONAL ="

inetiad wad sdfto nual] semi bas meal tonsner {

ERPREPATIONE os
so en
E ' ~
Re Se
=
a Hoe AT A. aieth

isn Sita’> YoAlessia

:
;
a.

axonsHoazal JIUMAR: = ee
Wank tacroapictteanio) Yo soeadiont brid tiation U box nine = qs
ten wat aoa
wih d F a
ot wi5= wat : Quateyai ; : ’
»

cTA EDITION
———
es em W208 SAU AME. a
? : 5 : bey, fri Th each nw v ‘1p faut aL cists: tefonlt acedretl : ’

ws Todos oar 5 Fe ruatt There t a mn

— (Medtield $n pi sie} So i ae aha
as

. WALK
ney 7 FL MurePHY "lt
gue ae HOw weouer aenagt
ae ad ‘ DASE! ‘ie anit i.
x y me 3 iit : a hag oad laeiend
| nu!ferodivl 3et! ‘FORE! hiraee | water

Pia ee: 5 Loouiate wad afi lo pe doh |>©

MEST PLEMING “<> sa a aln¥ bd
aan = |
anomie ch
e A: Rennes Baw wT Io)shes Laateae bedalirgniul sednit? ollieTa.
2 abc Same- Be: gee liatettoF, Wripak-tet 2053 ones 4.qan
oa + 2. ee i quote) eilstovi
avid _-

—~s a sais WeaMonT

De : «red ‘eyfoepviord avigol ans’ cold).
wie he alee ye Poe “na at
EDITORIAL BOARD

ROBERT C. CLARK
DIRECTING EDITOR
Distinguished Service Professor and Austin Wakeman Scott
Professor of Law and Former Dean of the Law School
Harvard University

DANIEL A. FARBER
Sho Sato Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program
University of California at Berkeley

SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF
Bonnie and Richard Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law
New York University

HERMA HILL KAY

Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law and
Former Dean of the School of Law
University of California at Berkeley

HAROLD HONGJU KOH

Sterling Professor of International Law and
Former Dean of the Law School
Yale University

SAUL LEVMORE
William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law and
Former Dean of the Law School
University of Chicago

THOMAS W. MERRILL
Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law
Columbia University

ROBERT L. RABIN
A. Calder Mackay Professor of Law
Stanford University

CAROL M. ROSE
Gordon Bradford Tweedy Professor Emeritus of Law and Organization and
Professorial Lecturer in Law
Yale University
Lohse Chair in Water and Natural Resources
University of Arizona
UNIVERSITY CASEBOOK SERIES®

AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION

FIFTH EDITION

by
WALTER F. MURPHY
Princeton University

JAMES E. FLEMING
Boston University

SOTIRIOS A. BARBER
University of Notre Dame

STEPHEN MACEDO
Princeton University

FOUNDATION
PRESS
The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a
substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the
services of a competent attorney or other professional.

University Casebook Series is a trademark registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

© 1986, 1995, 2008, 2008 FOUNDATION PRESS

© 2014 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
444 Cedar Street, Suite 700
St. Paul, MN 55101
1-877-888-1330

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 978-1-60930-142-2

Mat #41267429
For Walter Murphy

ili
 = _ is =

BN reas,
a ae

—
——— Sy

SS

°
a ee 2 at -* ,

Ther gel ileatt ns QUY oemeued ees ee

acgaiude Ys ay ebyap atis are rn Le
eras of « 6245 bene dieemaep ]
a> _— a)

ive tanieal re aan ceed

sot ©
a ec Ce
© 208 LG, Tow lila oat
AbeSomlarSlatoot Weel 2
 PREFACE
The goal of all five editions of this book has been to meet a need for
teaching materials that directly confront the core problems of the
enterprise of constitutional interpretation. To learn about politics in a
constitutional democracy, to teach students about politics in such a
polity, and to share ideas with colleagues with similar interests, we
must teach about a political system as a whole. And, for the United
States and most industrialized nations, that “whole” includes a
constitutional text. Relationships between those texts and the socio-
political entities that Aristotle called “constitutions” remain
problematic, even for the United States, as many of the readings in this
volume demonstrate.

How authoritative interpreters construe a nation’s constitutional

text and broader constitution will always have a significant, and
sometimes a critical, effect on the future of that polity as well as on
specific public policies. We try to highlight those broader systemic
effects by stressing the dual nature of the American political system: It
is a constitutional democracy, not simply a democracy or even a
representative democracy. It rests on a hybrid of the political theories of
constitutionalism and democracy.

We have organized the book around three basic interrogatives:

WHAT is the constitution that is to be interpreted? WHO may
authoritatively interpret it? And HOW is it to be interpreted? We
harbor no illusions that constitutional interpretation can or should be
an exact science: It is subject to inevitable and often heated controversy
because interpretive disputes frequently turn on our deepest
disagreements about political morality. But constitutional
interpretation need not, indeed, should not, be mere partisan responses
to particular practical problems. Constitutional interpretation is
performed most adequately and responsibly, we believe, when
interpreters articulate and grapple with the difficult political and legal
judgments that underlie their choices, including the crucial choice of an
interpretive strategy. This view is itself controversial among political
scientists, law professors, practicing lawyers, elected public officials,
and members of the United States Supreme Court. But it is a belief that

1 See Walter F. Murphy, Constitutional Democracy: Creating and Maintaining a Just

Political Order (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007). Later we make the obvious
point that there is no single democratic theory any more than there is a single theory of
constitutionalism, a fact that complicates constitutional interpretation not only in the United
States but also in Australia, Canada, India, Japan, most nations of Europe, and some in Latin
America.
vi PREFACE

is hardly unique to us. We hope to convince others to think about and

even test its validity for the United States and other nations as well.’

We have tried to accomplish these tasks not by focusing exclusively

on legal doctrines, but by showing students how constitutional
interpretation connects with both political theory and public policy.
Constitutional interpretation is, perhaps inevitably, informed by
political theory, usually produces legal doctrine, and always interacts
with, and sometimes changes, other forces in the political system. In
turn, those forces act on the interpretive enterprise, sometimes
changing the decisions it yields, sometimes modifying the nature of that
enterprise, and occasionally reshaping the polity itself.

Answers to the WHAT, WHO, and HOW of constitutional

interpretation are difficult and controversial, but no intellectually
serious effort to understand or engage in constitutional interpretation
can avoid them. And answers, as we have indicated, may have
enormous consequences for the entire polity. A public official who
believes that the constitution is totally contained within the plain words
of the document of 1787—88 and its amendments is very apt to see the
rules of the political system, its distributions of decision-making
authority, and its values and goals very differently from an official who
believes that the constitution includes traditions, practices, and
political theories that bind and loose as authoritatively as does the
document. So, too, a response to the interrogative WHO that Congress
or the President has interpretive authority equal or superior to that of
the judiciary has massive implications not only for public policy, but
also for the nature of the political system. Similarly significant
consequences follow from responses about HOW to interpret.

We recognize that, if students are to explore these basic questions

intelligently, they need to understand some of the substance of
constitutional law. We have therefore organized analyses of these
interrogatives around customary categories of constitutional law and
theory. For example, we discuss questions of HOW to interpret in
connection with approaches to interpretation such as_ textualism,
structuralism, and reinforcing representative democracy. To some
extent, all of the materials illustrate textwalism, for the American
constitutional document has such sanctity that, even when going
against its terms, public officials find it necessary to attempt to justify
their actions by interpreting those words. To illustrate structuralism,
we look at separation and sharing of power among the President,

2 One of us did co-produce a volume of essays, cases, and materials that cut across
national lines: Walter F. Murphy and Joseph Tanenhaus, Comparative Constitutional Law
(New York: St. Martin’s, 1977).
° Thomas Jefferson’s refusal to engage in constitutional interpretation to rationalize
what he thought was his own unconstitutional action in purchasing the Louisiana Territory is
the great exception. See Chapter 19.
 PREFACE vii

Congress, and the national judiciary as well as division and sharing of

power generated by federalism. To illustrate how interpreters approach
the constitution as a device to reinforce representative democracy, we
deal with problems involving freedom of communication and political
participation. And to analyze an approach that views the constitution
as a scheme to protect fundamental rights, we examine writings
concerned with property, religious liberty, and autonomy. In sum, we
have designed this book so that no one who uses it can avoid learning a
great deal of constitutional law. We intend, however, that users will
also learn much more.

Instructors will thus find much in these pages that is familiar from
other casebooks, but those materials are organized here in ways that,
we believe, will enlighten students about the nature and relevance of
constitutional interpretation. We should emphasize, however, that our
editings of materials often include sections omitted by editors who are
more concerned to present legal doctrines than to link political theory,
fundamental principles, public policy, and constitutional interpretation.

To guide students, we have begun Parts and Chapters with

introductory essays. Because we know that many instructors will not
assign all pages of this book, we have deliberately built in some
redundancy. We fear that a neat, economical presentation of questions,
arguments, and evidence will cause many important points to be lost.
After most of the readings we have included editors’ notes and queries.
Some of this apparatus may be of use to busy instructors as well as to
beginning students.

To allow students to savor the rhetoric as well as the reasoning

that judges deploy to justify their work, we have retained many (though
not all) of their references to previous decisions. To make the book more
legible, we have eliminated the citations to those cases. At the
beginning of the volume a Table of Cases, with full citations, enables
readers to pursue further research.

This book is large. It provides more than enough readings—and we

hope ideas—to energize a two-semester course, though the editors
themselves have used this volume only for one-semester courses. In any
event, if we take democratic theory seriously, having a choice is not a
bad thing.

We maintain a web site—www. princeton.edu/aci—where we will

supplement the fifth edition with future cases, materials, and analysis
as well as cases, notes, and selected bibliographies from the first,
second, third and fourth editions whose text does not appear in the hard
copy of this edition. We encourage users of this book to avail themselves
of the web site, and we have included in the book cross-references to
some of the material available there.
vill PREFACE

We would make a pair of additional points. None of us pretends to

be indifferent about either the three basic interrogatives around which
we have structured this book or the enterprise of constitutional
interpretation itself. Each of us thinks of himself as a defender of
constitutional democracy. On the other hand, we do not completely
agree about some aspects of the American version of free government.
We disagree, for instance, on precisely WHAT the constitution includes,
the limits on how it may be legitimately changed, and HOW it should be
interpreted. We also disagree about some of the substantive results of
constitutional interpretation.

We hope our disagreements are fruitful for users of this book.

Rather than present a party line about correct answers to the basic
interrogatives or specific issues of constitutional interpretation and law,
we have tried to offer readers a range of arguments for differing
responses. As Gerald Graff, the noted literary critic, has said, “the
surest way to protect students from being bullied by their teachers’
political views is to expose them to the debates between those views.”4

Efforts to present several sides of disputes do not, we think, reflect

moral or constitutional relativism or even pragmatic compromise, for
none of us subscribes to the equality of all moral or constitutional
answers. Rather, our editorial decision represents a collective faith in
reasoned argument and a belief that offering readers options that
require them to think long and hard gives them the best chance of
reaching justifiable conclusions. Faith in constitutional democracy,
after all, rests on belief in human dignity and, therefore, on the capacity
of free and equal men and women to grapple with if not solve moral and
constitutional problems in ways that preserve and enhance that dignity.

We dedicate this edition to Walter Murphy, our departed friend,

teacher, and colleague. In preparing the fifth edition, we have missed
his judgment, erudition, and wit. But we continue to appreciate how
pervasive is his mark on this book. We appreciate Doris Murphy’s
continuing support.

In the prefaces to previous editions, we have acknowledged the

assistance of many people. Here we wish to thank several people who
have been especially helpful to us in preparing the fourth and fifth
editions.

Karen Flax, Esq., read portions of the manuscript of all five

editions and corrected some of our errors. Professor Linda C. McClain of
Boston University School of Law gave valuable advice on the second,

4 Letter to the Editor, New York Review of Books, May 16, 1991, p. 62.
 PREFACE 1X:

third, fourth and fifth editions. Katherine Amelia McClain Fleming

diliently helped with proofreading of the fifth edition.

Robert Rodgers, while a graduate student at Princeton (he is now a

professor at Stonehill College), performed intelligently, resourcefully,
and responsibly as far more than a research assistant for the fourth
edition; John P. Dilulio, Jr., a current graduate student at Princeton,
has provided similarly extraordinary assistance on the fifth edition.
J.D. students Courtney Gesualdi, Kate Lebeaux, and Christopher
Mercurio and reference librarians Stefanie Weigmann and Jennifer
Ekblaw of Boston University School of Law provided helpful research
assistance to Fleming. Cameron Samuelson, Fleming’s administrative
assistant, ably assisted in proofreading the manuscript and preparing
the index.

John Bloomquist and Ryan Pfeiffer of Foundation Press provided

much-needed encouragement as we prepared the fourth and fifth
editions. For the first four editions, James Coates skillfully shepherded
the manuscript through that labyrinth euphemistically called
production. For the fifth edition, Rebecca Schneider did hkewise.

We acknowledge responsibility for all errors that remain, including

those that “Spellcheck” missed. Yet, as we said in the Preface to the
previous editions, if there were a way of graciously sharing blame with
those commentators, judges, and other public officials who have so often
misinterpreted the constitutional text as well as the broader
constitution, we would most eagerly seize it.

JEF
Boston, MA

SAB
Notre Dame, IN

SM
Princeton, NJ

July 2013
 Bil opens obvi e2h n Boveth
nonthe the aisad - SVEONG
thi = he
ibs Use sspurbere ;
HEE MIGROS bomneapen 64 h
4. igh daaoeeh. diego
is Hed’ ears
t Sé ; SP SFO TI + yh
Ms ¢TUL) ABE he 4%, eas oor eid

= es
ee cine). aay bios teeta
; UAT SIG WY |.3 ati SPECT sorsnher
uy HOY ‘texerian DLT UT o teadaR: gietavisly, se
J Wiseluiotiaae nigel laces
ie Poneatty Dey
l 0 1 WR

BOTS (nee. Lyrigg ha

nlet 3
its Baa line
i rtthbetio oe nt
, ie = Oh Couette Hone
aren on 120
ohio esters pr to itish4,
birt Mio ASO. corte Rey HiT RE, gs
bo bvedgarts vilitiints ac tebe ett
ellsy viinel Hamed tacydal tnds. a
ASE mh a Mareetiis pirwd Th ayasibad
t
f a ; . Luis[5 Or iy
gaipuloal Mag
« is 4
Ee
had wr
9 ite “acihvtaHtia
ir:
a
2 Racy srr aI belt,90a bie -a7Free:
Pe Farcle Bisgite “gant ORT ROVEB we
iefi2.08 ayes ody again oidug e
y
alasfi pre AB. LIMactiAP?
p zs
all yout an heres. holt eateueh
ie ifr OG leh ied ny Tore ta Br
rtsation pire iipess er

‘aaa
. UN
f aac soy
ss raewinnie ie ten“a
is shee ‘ane cuvedgie, '
fis fudged hi ate
Lives sie Me hia enek &
Seek Mapa
SE EEN TT EE ESS TEED

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
LES
SLMOU Celik pope bee SBA et ites) Ah WOR 1 rie Dee MATE REN ey ne ee Vv
“LALSTBUOTS COV09 NGIS'SRe eds ale da Ny) rrr XXV

Chapter 1. Interpreting a Constitution ..........ccccccccccccececcscsceccecsecececeececeees 1

Chapter 2. Constitutional Literacy ........0.cccccccccccscscsssscscscsscssseessscsesececseeee 19

PART I. THE CONTEXT OF CONSTITUTIONAL

INTERPRETATION

Chapter 3. The Theoretical Context of Constitutional

PALOEPECLALION ect tee EL 204 AQIGE 35

Chapter 4. The Political and Institutional Contexts of

Censtitutional Interpretation. ee 67

PART II. WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION?

Chapter 5. What Is the Constitution? Problems of Inclusion.......... 105

Chapter 6. What Is the Constitution? Problems of Continuity

AN CHANG Cosi 5cse. SATS TN AE INR ocliubane deca adesiots Naha Seta 169

PART III. WHO MAY AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRET

THE CONSTITUTION?

Chapter 7. Who May Authoritatively Interpret the Constitution

for the National Government? «......:.0.....ccccscassssecsscssasngaseaacnspesoosnenenes 261

Chapter 8. Who May Authoritatively Interpret the Constitution

fOF CHE HCCC CAN SV SECU G otic ree, cee ceoten oe eusnieiee oe eatin 351

PART IV. HOW TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION

FBO Ea NET RR E18 O ESL IGMESS cons ca cevnasennsiccsenveesessonssctceceicvonvascosdonnpeasssesnsserces 377

Chapter 9. How to Interpret the Constitution: An Overview.......... 379

B: STRUCTURALISM: DRAWING INFERENCES FROM

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND RELATIONSHIPG............... 425

Chapter 10. Separation and Sharing of Powers: The Structure

of the National Government ii2.i17... 00 neetilcceban
lets lickosuieiesee 427

Chapter 11. Sharing Powers: The Structure of Federalism ............ 541

C: REINFORCING REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: KEEPING

POLITICAL PROCESSES OP EIN ictig. cactiss-t, iasccsehcsttcccsstacssnescsccsssesesscesecs 677

Chapter 12. Freedom of Political Communication .....................0 697

xi
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS

Chapter 13. Political Participation’ 2 iri.ccc0.2.sc--ce

neces cesyeeseeeree een 811

D: TREATING EQUALS EQUALLY i0:22..0.0:0:..ccccsccssssosensasootossccssascscsscoces 931

Chapter 14. The Problems of Equal Protection: Suspect

ClassifiCations .os.cc.00i5s5scecseneaneb
sooat tasgeet eeeee see ae ee en 941

Chapter 15. The Problems of Equal Protection: Somewhat

Suspicious Classifications and Fundamental Rights.............. 1041

E: MAINTAINING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY:

PROTECTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. .............ccssccsssscssssseseeeeeeeee 11387

Chapter 16. The Right to Property: To Individual Autonomy

And Back |vcssocissedssescotocsvodearsceottaasesnecdecenen
ones Sena aeeee tee ee ee eee 1195

Chapter 17. Autonomy, Religious Freedom, and the Elusive

Quest for Governmental Neutrality Toward Religion............ 1283

Chapter 18. Individual Autonomy: Personal Liberty, Privacy,

and Personhood «. .2.06 65! ducatl. Sgecitsdieeeee
) nd alae 2 1413

PART V. CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY IN THE

CRUCIBLE OF CRISIS

Chapter 19. Constitutional Interpretation and Emergency

POWYS «4.5035: SAO ee ee eee 1583

Bpilogue issiisasicas dain dacwaadad.clenigadkandenh

ae eee 1637

Appendix A. Table of U.S. Supreme Court Justices ...........ccccccseseees 1641

Appendix B. The Constitution of the United States of

AMIOT ICA». scisesascaccsnscsicsannsanatsandcensosaweusodsteedanettakouktecesane
eareeeeee 1647
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cases marked with an * are available at the book’s web site, www.princeton.edu/aci.
Case names enclosed in brackets indicate cross-references
to cases reprinted elsewhere in the book.

IRS
UINGs gers adel fa etre Rp a pe tele ax Van edi et cla V

MPEU SOR CASES chats at..'Ts.m- dade SE ee ee hemeahicstizaca” XXV

Chapter 1. Interpreting a Constitution .........00.ccccccccccsccscsscceseesseseeseeseesess 1

ies The Fonctions ofa Constitutional Text .s.g40 hack 0h..
ER... 3
tre Why Interpret the Constitutional Text? hica.00.2.:.c0cstbsadidio AT csc. 6
vas CABLE S12 open Pee PENS £m ON EE EE RR a EN te I a
Ber Commci acy palilianiali Inter niet the Ceoned vels: bation... 8
GT OTA ERT OTWENN. OTe 10 ee Rhee: 5 Seen ee Cai OS eer RY we MO 8 9" 9
Hip Unitoreseem Developments sib Laccsdvsacndlsvacvssenishtdarvoodnentowmplhes10
RP ASSEN EDO a Oy ae eee OT Onn ee a | See Se 8 a 11
III. The Enterprise Called Constitutional Interpretation ........00..cccceeeeeee 12
MRE NORE AAA AAEEO TAT SRESOOKoo. 05.hsadse esevagdonhettocaca
esannsicc ssos hd 14
pededectiimbecatonm
Pi NIA WSO, CONSTITUTION 05 eccv-og so ocbortesvacbe ctatwcuspoul
obageRe bentundee 14
Baa WiOmhallbinterprettity Jeeta geen b shad lout hebeaceyedkawrad oovatber
d 15
ReaMeHOWietorn ter pret). Aiden ak ALA WEL Os Beeeeededat 17
D. The Strains of Crisis and Putting It Back Together..........00..000000. 17

Chapter 2,Constitutional: Literacy ....-.:..s<ccccoc.c:-cicssescneoroesoeesabeerpbeassective 19

Per UrpucceOh ReadMe UGCA! OPINIONS ..i..sso0kccisaiaecsoseahesdevsteeis gcesdeooee 19
bien ricting- a. Wacseree se reuiart) Sere. le AUST EIE ED ccs cscapcotban 22.
III. Understanding Opinions: Style and Substance .............cccccceeesedeseeeeeees 24
Ac. tamer Derisisns somairic't. \ reiki Mest. A. We Ae i Ree 25
B. Thedumimtsiot stare Decisisi.aneek) 2anaianwiiliss cis 26
Cie ontauton Changes, 7 ccser cesses betod cheecaees ses 0s ccespncp bee 29
D.... Peohlemsjof Ommeompetenceiiins.4 hoe A Petes... 30
Appendix: Deciphering the Numbers and Locating Resources.....30

PART I. THE CONTEXT OF CONSTITUTIONAL

INTERPRETATION

Chapter 3. The Theoretical Context of Constitutional

UL ESE ALON eco c stesso i Ivone spaces yeaa ee ctw ue = sas pms Tie seme sont TSeNs eetud eRe 35
ee OlICAl PNCORLES 11) TON SIO c.ccsc. cacnssautas n+ --a-apepadescuarnconodMas'geaindaaea oped ony35
PAE REPTCECHUALIVE LICINOCLACY vicscecpncnncs-n-000008T-daslosonr sony«abe oboesenfisehulp 35
adch
PME OMG TAC UDION AVSIM 28s: ces raeeuseuatsaiadossestssehoos+sexees ceieecsbeethIocaaetana he 40
II. The “Pure Constitutionalist” v. The “Pure Representative
Demoerabethern! ot cccteces here Jezaes thegtideecics: Poe 7a). aot Mt OE 44
SIMD IE SD ECEI UID ce5sryc0g2scngorccseenessszehiephest PUGET?
scdsesesoseesADE Rs 44
B.. Toward a Reconciliation.of Rival Theories? 25. ..0:.:scsaeve.t.sbecceetsesy 49
Ill. Free Government: The Founding Generation ............ceeeeeeeeesereeeees 52
eee The Critical Broblemsiofi 1 (67 ws pt-ees) +. aris aceon) dadonpice. 52
B. The Grand Strategy of Checks and Counterchecks ............:0:005 D4
Peer sGeogra pC LatePy c..iiccencGO HOA at SIAM >-2
escreynpts nTeE- 56
De) =SOClo— ECONOUME otha be Siac tenet A: peieon bade ose ef isl iaeel sacaead- 56
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3... Institutional: Strate gynite.c.c..0-.s0c.cccec cree aac

onesnonct
seme nenaeetaenne 58
C.. Sentinels Over Public Rights. ...0. cece. ssecemecs ee, Pe eee
sareeesaecees 60
IV. The Developing System icc. (.c.:i:sccetepsdad orecs--eeaenaseoranennae
aigeteener talesecedasacs 60
V. Conclusion .c...8204. 2 ee enone eer ener 64

Chapter 4. The Political and Institutional Contexts of

Constitutional Interpretation. ..............:..20..0+.00000sssersarehentnastedecnser sence67
I; "The Political System. ..5..:.c.c c.sesscasb seineensessecca
ssayaneiareaeeee ee cenees
eee
ser caeaamae 67
A. Sharing Powers Within the National System of Government... ... 67
B. Sharing Powers Within the Federal System........... ...:cccceeseeeees eees 12
C.-«The.Checking-of Shaving’sie...5 pa cpessesees eee eee nate ne ae en EE 73
D. The Capacity of Interest Groups and Officials to Trigger
Gheelksisssictssteisieca sduacasu
gens Ppspaett paeee feacep aap See eaeene sasnasdu
eee eee eee 74
E. An Open System of Checks and Counterchecks............:::ccceseeee 75
IL’ -The Judicial Process: Procedural Differences *: 20-0. sec t2 serene tans cen ee es 76
III...-.Procedures: Within, the Supreme) Cow triscsssecz pecrsereeee eee 78
IV: .The-Influence 6f MoralValtess io i ae eee eee ee 85
Vit..Korematsur A Gase Sti yccscccssinsaeeciaee tence ee 87
As General. Backgrownid eiiiisaee es Ee ee eee 87
B:. ..Hirabayashi‘v.. United States ive scisse eaecct
oteneste aeoeoreak ee 89
C.-- Kerematsu-and-fndo: Reach the Gourt=.9 Wives 92
D.-. Negotiations Withim-the-Gourtie: Seno ferssest cote etcetera 95
BE. Aftermath jcc AAA a eee ee ee eegs a 96
VIE “Co melusiory 755555 cs es te see eee ecco ete 98

PART II. WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION?

Chapter 5. What Is the Constitution? Problems of Inclusion.......... 105

I. Inclusion: Interpretations? Usages? Traditions? Political
TPHEOLICS )os .scccssccsessieccoweeeanacteanaatairoasdeecrcnesSteeeaaeet
sateteetee eee eee ene eee 106
Ike. The Constitution: Written? Livang?:on Abstract?a0) ta eee 108
If: ..Respeet:for the: Texts 310.5. 235 Gees, Aud aa et Oe ere 2
IV. The Objectives of This Chapter viiss.cccaiccstasn cous co cere eee 143
Calder vi Bull ia id dk SAS oc rete ot Oe TOE ER BT eee 114
Jacobson v.. Massachusettss £224. ets .ct ene acteeha tomas es gence nerereres waarmee 119
Palko v. Gomnecticut &, .ceccccccqsgesserseeskarseeaeactepreeenn eee 122
“Incorporation” Of the Bil Of Riehte tcc tec<c.ose pencereceeeccesatc eeee nee 126
Poerve Willian ce eee ee 129
Griswold‘v; ‘Connecticut: uacene eee eae 13%
Michael: He v2 Gerald Dicsccce eae cece cece 148
Geev: Weisman cine ieee iiss reat 157

Chapter 6. What Is the Constitution? Problems of Continuity

and Change -issciaisissitucdiusciunnaentan dee eee 169
I. Formal Amendment of the Constitutional Text........ccccccccccseessseeceeeees EO
II.. Changing Interpretations of the Constitution™..:........9. ee. 172
III. Original Understanding, Continuity, and Change... cece LTA
IV. Aspirational Interpretation and Constitutional Democracy.............. 177
Dred. Scott-v. Sandford i::csvcienantee ee ee ee 181
 TABLE OF CONTENTS XV

ROR Dulles rod ts aii fe letiven deride ls.oi hl. Bectekes 200
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections ....ccccccccccccscssesssssesscseseseees 206
District el. Columbia-vicH cllerass Penovt bavhecccsionmusuR. cine PANE
Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil....c.ccccccccccccsesseccscesseeeseees 231
William J. Brennan, Jr., The Constitution of the United States:
Contemporary Ratificationc. 262: aque Bat iia Heleotuieaniil, 236
William H. Rehnquist, The Notion of a Living Constitution .............. 243
Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously: Constitutional Cases......248

PART III. WHO MAY AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRET

THE CONSTITUTION?

Chapter 7. Who May Authoritatively Interpret the Constitution

for the National, Government tc on... ices seo cccktte-os coat leeaasessfeaduteckoiecs 261
My nO.le-the tim ated nler preter’ cc. occ; <<ynscies, sevgedicinsssteesi otkav@edett«ocd 263
Pre mere ACCU ADL CTIEACY 6.6200 onc cadhisia dortssaaessiss aac soloeiastasnbuccadaee awe: 263
<5Hg WSOPE FEY NZS PYDYa7 Vc 1 tN 267
Cc ULBLST ES ES SYST TET gaa RPC RL SEO Ir 268
THES 2 TESRays Ci POE te ea Rr ER PERU TRON MRCS SIRT: 212
II. Deference and the Fourteenth Amendment...........cccccceeeesseceeesetsceceeeees 274
James Madison on Judicial Review and Judicial Supremacy............. Zhi
iene LeLbers OF Bruiti1s. NO. id Lessssccsocsonpensveseen Seteecetdt Moke ee 281
| EG ERTCGS FONEY fe CES ans, Oe Ce Se Re Nn Ore Te AEC Ore OME Caer 7 284
The Great Debaterot. 180221 80380..) 2.41. AAR aia Be WO Fale 288
ada eT ALG, OD gLES oc... Etre Mivieanices viaanivechs eal eae oak289
Ded tbeeLAT Vn IVEACIBON 55 2h5rn cesses besides ihiradastccensessheeay aaserenl Mem eed 296
Jefferson Instructs a Federal Prosecutor ............cccccccccccceeeeseeeseees 304
MeeacaN gy AIGAMAiasetg shajieees 33 bs 34.4 40n0scdsesnscdtanes tescne TPE UA Lets 306
Andrew Jackson’s Veto of the Bank Bill... eceeceeeeeees 310
Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address...............cccccceseeseeeees old
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Speech on Reorganizing the Federal
SSI Fog ene eer reer, URN EOD MLC ALOTR OSD SRL AACN MEO ADS EC cL 315
initedsottes ae UNION OMSL). MEIN PAB AOE ohne 319
Katzenbachw Morgan laura NAb een 2. Ln 324
Abortion, The Supreme Court, and Congressional Authority
Under the Fourteenth Amendment to Define “Person” ............... 33k
POI ALC AL LO Gisresistececcasdnr a thal onah tea Neca tecaste otisouddlanadenes 331
B. Prepared Statement of Laurence H. Tribe on S. 158...............0.. 332
C. Prepared Statement of John T. Noonan, Jr., on S. 158.......0...... 334
[CityeOh BOerne.V aHIOKOS LILOd hse Hat og LBL LENIN 2c cateewesecee 338
Lshelby County, Alabama: ¥,, Holder). :.0.cs.scdcieontedepus-cesetorsenessseceee 340
The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements ....... 340
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
ONGEEORSESR et ee aoe ET Oe EEE POR NCE) eer nae oe ee no eee 343
Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation
Involving the Defense of Marriage Act ..............::ccsssssseceeesreeeteeeees 345
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 8. Who May Authoritatively Interpret the Constitution

for the Federal System? .............::::cccssscccssscnscessersscsenseeeseseducersvsnscess 351
Il) State Supremacy yeti orem acts bERR) ah Rad 2., Rioters 353
II. Confederational Departmentalism .........00..ccccccccceeceeeeeeeeese seeenensseeeees 354
III. ~National’'Supremacy i112. Sei) AiieLG2s1 Sih ns ansbadeddbemaeeeee see arts cre suntan ade 305
Judiciary Act. of 1789, Section 25 ............ccscssesenccnsceeseeseesonssoenerecasconss 356
The. Debate‘of 1798-7 TOOL hk OR Ae ct REE ice ae nent a 357
A. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 5/2... 20i25,.5. a as. sean 358
B. The States Respond to Kentucky and Virginia ...........c0:ccceseeee 361
Martin Hunter's Lessee?" rr ttcsseetet ce eteene mae cse aeecte teeter ernate 363
John C. Calhoun, A Discourse on the Constitution and
Government of the United States -y os seact eee ast Peerage ene364
tant a0 teecesoconte
Ableman ¥. Booth scccccs ici lteccscsoseccncerean ate eee 366
Nullifying and Reaffirming Brown v. Board of Education.......... 367
A. The Southern Manifesto: A Declaration of Constitutional
PRINCI ples eee ree rea tiace os gece saan casemate 367
BB.’ Alabama’s Nullification Resolution i022 ..cs-ste ce eres
eee 369
Cr Cooper v SAAT ONT eect cree seca er 370

PART IV. HOW TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION

A?'GENERAL PROBLEMS. itsces Sovvescceessnsnanceochetconatcsteddeloencte

sootenet a namene 377

Chapter 9. How to Interpret the Constitution: An Overview.......... 379

Lore Textialisri:,..:..2.ss0sssiecsssrsesteosensveteendaevsseesteass
heed erase «St peMeae eee eet eee 380
Tec Originalignn si. 1. hve bevGd. Gis. Tizhpste tds faa ekece dete eee ee eae ene 385
TIBaeDoctrinali gi... ...cco..0..<aoksyneainhyeeebese aekere Peee: eee 394
Wie Developmentalisiny. \.57.0yR6 Eisen tatoo ome oe eRe eee 397
V. Philosophical Approach: Accepting the Need for Moral and Political
JUAEMEN....-osvssxsvemenebelad, Leones |.heeed eck anand eee een cee 400
VI. Structurahiowt:.q- Simian see eet eS Sloe Fi orl wee 404
Vils Discerning Constitutional Purposes:c, ..cscaccesrssscerescsaneasWeeseetee aadeeeusee es406
VIII. The Roles of Constitutional Aspiration and Prudence.....................5 412
IX. Balancing: An Inevitability Masquerading as an Approach? ............. 415
X. ~Coneluding Remarksiiuta’). ces. eck) isnceee: Sekt tence eee ees 420
Appendix vecastiiantall.ot.taembracnd,. Gaeisese saiceet ae 421
1. -Strict vi Liberal Construction. ...21..0..0.0ie eee eee eee 421
2. Judicial Activism v. Judicial Self—Restraint .............0.0...0008 422
3. \)) Sabstance visProcediife? acct. is anngeaiate econ 422
4. Interpretivism v. Non—Interpretivism ..............ccccsseeeeseeeeeeeee 423

B: STRUCTURALISM: DRAWING INFERENCES FROM

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND RELATIONSHIP6G............... 425

Chapter 10. Separation and Sharing of Powers: The Structure

of the National Government 3 )iciciiessiecsoseeiue.
orsa0 duce ee 427
[.. Introduction cust na dansiss hasodia tae a at ee ee 427
Il. ASystem,of Shared,Powers 2:4... 5ctasencs eee ee eee 432
Federalist Nos Blissey sicscantestshnncceaneee ee ee 432
lil. Sharing. Powers:.The,Power:to, Wave Warsi ee 435
 TABLE OF CONTENTS Xvil

bitten Barreme.( The Mlying Wish)... ode Mawlede,

rpeal l435
iets Cases. 160e Lie dat alien. banda. ines ena 437
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp......cccccccescsccsesesseeseees 440
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ....ccccccccecsssssescesescesssseseeseaes 443
ime Warebowerd Resolution nk seed Meee vei wie Mek G ST Lot 453
Authorization for Use of Military Forces Against Iraq Resolution
DORA Re LOS, BO cn es 458
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed
Porees:A gainst-lrag (2002), OU) Dano de ee, 460
IV. Institutional Integrity in a System of Shared Powers........cccccccccese0e: 461
MASSISSEpp IyePOMNSON Sess seac ee eed hSERS 462
Truman Refuses to:Obey a Subpoena). 13.0.0 Aah escone 462
REOPEN OMUSOS HOLE COLIN (cccar, to sacseeirides sever coecurnteds eedeessecceesamorrioeeooet 464
POOPARLOMNICO AvUlo mehr trees. eek sccee ete cc receceteuesete 464
BPe thats MEUUNEN SLE LG c Rast. ccc igsqraresaic tesgesitpors rsepdiccd sireesezacvascieeasoicadiardbaene 468
IRRee He PRCAEPING MCIRI Grate Uk rate Mean sone tasks leqrastsbenristerestoscseeeser ainwetdaete 469
VBCT 2STnYS: GLSN\ ted OLECLGLads Reape Bt had Re ml a ats 20 ek oR for Comoe 494
V. Institutional Interactions in a System of Shared Powers.................. 508
be LETISSUe UVPECSare Te) 6) 0 feeeral ap i a enter ea Ape eens Bee te 508
Pe SUSIE LIC SAN OiOW so soc caret esdejtustdedsetscneeiesvadussccesevestorsnesins 509
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha...............ccccccseeees 514
ON RISES CG COs GC Bs 6: 21 eins ila kaa al aa RP aR Detter ACARD ARID. ehemy 526
OMe Otay e C1 CORON OW LY.OF 1s ra sossrrc ieuserdeceievadanctecesnasbegi
rdoiiei es 540
ueunsdverevaah

Chapter 11. Sharing Powers: The Structure of Federalism ............ 541

MR ore ENIIA ISIN ooh ors Sets eee eace REAR ee nee Do heneages 541
th? Theories, of Ameérican-Federalism ion nrat SEAS canes 544
Gra Notional-Supremacy Agacc iia hewn 544
Beh eee) abeee a iS 199 5gx) oh Pec acne tasea a ode Soke A enedens 545
@.- Athetuen-to INational:Supremacy)!. iianic cae vt tect ee sae 546
skis
III. Protecting Federalism: A Task for Judges or Legislators? ................ 548
iV ‘The Continue Strugele.. 2c ee Sn a caasaes 550
Vo) Phe Basie Structure of Federalism 1.1.5... B AR Ra esos DZ
CASE aS iyNG 8 Oita rahe ene se teeat a batets siaiehs oces sae coeia ee iea cents eaeestotncn seniées 552
iviarbiaac mumbers Mhessee] Vascetiecot sts Se ese ncsehesesstecavnsentcens 555
MeCullochws Nayland Fe ae eI Ahecsegese 555
WPEc11 Sieh PRO?
WW 5 8 hs verses vases eae Resse geen 567
Dl atmeivter—HouGerO asst. iis. ce ceecetetceeUutveyerscuaUaeveanraudlnnrecesnegesceeaacebeeseees 568
IN DIGEEN
Gtr (yal s Rog Ee aYo ee tenn cabo Ry RE ae Pie eine Baer BeBe 581
VI. Congress’s Power to Regulate Interstate Commerce: A
Battleground for Competing Conceptions of Federalism .................+. 581
(ETS sors 25 ieO40 (Sr ee giaee cece ecoeern encoder Career eres Eran es ne nen cee eee 581
United States) Darby Lamber Cotsssseninl sescisdsdeceteveccdseasassese’e 587
National league -of Citiés vi Usery oii... il L clvetcnescrestnsesecactenetense 591
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority ...............0 592
The Eleventh Amendment and the Immunity of States from Suit ....600
IS W WOELOV MUTA ILCE ISLA LOS triste restececete seceadt Cocndgacoscadeecudouesuetenadeunedieaseves 603
Prints VMI Led SUAUOSEt sna vissocere setae tatidoes Ue oovecmreTaccaseesesseedevensttcatenntvees 613
WWriNtSeaEALCSiN LODO ZA tek Asceciatenesos-Seecenasssest snvosceedcuesecne cee627
Gseetaasaeedo
Xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS

United Statesvv, Morrisons: 22.22/22 eee eee ee 637

Gonzales vi Raich® vio.b i230. .ccilecknssnsseasacerocawsnsascncetpenoty
Sete tind eeeet sa eeteme 653
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius................. 654

C: REINFORCING REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: KEEPING

POLITICAL, PROCESSES.OPEN fiz. «:xe«ossssdsaechs»ounstabowaspbarsen>aases sanesses deus 677
Introd etions os ciesshcs aaa edh Geek Misiwwossies Sele ceatetepeaeee ee ter came eee eee 677
James Bradley Thayer, The Origin and Scope of the American
Doctrine. of Constitutional Law caine eee ee cee 680
United. States v..Carolene.Products Com. x. u:-«:apemae aetna 687
The History of Footnote Fouti..ccc,..ct.s)ete. 1.cdPteas nesta tees eee 692

Chapter 12. Freedom of Political Communication ...............0......... 697

I. Communication and Constitutional Interpretation ................ccccceccee 697
A. From Democratic Theory to Literal Interpretation ...............0 697
B. ‘The: Interplay. of Other Values ¢......:,s.:0:0282-22.e e-eeeseee eseee eee 699
IL... Principles of Interpretation. xx j2c.¢<-bsa.ccts- ee eee 702
III. The Structural Role of Freedom of Political Communication ............ 706
New York Times v..Sullivans...:.c.c2s..:c00:s00lotacecaee eee ena eee 706
Richmond Newspapers, .Inc/v. Virginia” 22724 scien ee ee 713
IV... Advocacy or Incitement of Unlawtul Action ©... 222 2:...0-0:.0ss eee 713
Whitney v.? Calo tit atetrrea2iccatsadincscara<ctnae oad gutiaecnaie ae ee ane 713
Dennis v. United: States: (.c. :.cc.ccscscssessnsoeds
eae tne .e en ee 720
Brandenburg vi OhI0CRAS hcl icc atet tos epee een Te Tat
V..2 »Categories ‘of, Unprotected Expression ¥.:0« jus -aasts lt ee eee 732
As ©Fighting Word srcsssccsstisatsiesers tata ends eee ee 732
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshivrecdiicwahet- canine eee 132
B: Defamation of Groups :.sisc.cucnss eee ee 735
Beattharnais V. Winoisvcc..k Awe ent ee eee 735
RIA... vi St. Paul vsc.cc naga ede dd leet eee eee ee 741
C. Defamation of Public Officials and Public Figures .........00...cccce. 758
[New York Times ‘v) Sullivan) sccccoc:atecesaet eee eee eee 759
D, Offensive Expressions: 2.00 eae ot Bee ee ee ee 759
Cohen v/California 3)... ea Be eee 759
BE. “Harmful Expression: .c.cccsaicscicttgakets eee ee eee 764
American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut.....cccccccceceeeeeee 764
F. Outrageous Expression? 5i 5 i ac<cn.cece eee TE
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v) Falwell?) 2 oe eee TP
Snyder vi Phelps... 26 GUNS ce ee TET
G. False Statements of Mactiixa died ye eee eae 780
United States. yi Al vare tiesiacicawes hd ieideecr Gee ia
enant)
eee 780
Vilz= Symbolic Expression: "7... s,s core eee ee 790
United States v. O'Brien..\..:.7, a8. caatenen heel ee eee 790
United States vy. Hichmany....... <2. tuctutd can week een oni ee 796
VII; Prior Restraint of Expression Ay ctita niece
eicte eo ee 802
Near %. Minnesota >... ads.cihb cosape
cegs eeu coe ee Ieee
ctrygt
ee 802
The Pentagon Papers Case (New York Times v. United States)* i 802
VHi.. Unconstitutional Conditions ...................1--25 eee 803
Rust V, Sullvanisccscé gcasscesccegwettest
oveutn Saa
ceccne
t ce 803
 TABLE OF CONTENTS xix

Chapter 13. Political Participation ...........cccccccccccssssscsssssssscsesessseseseees 811

I. To What Extent Does the Constitution Include Democratic
LINNEA 0.) Bias gS ag et Uy cet i 812
it) Practical voplems <c0Uos or tenes 36 amoidoxs | ad’ T a9%6 815
A. Voting: Problems of Districting, Literacy, and Residence........... 815
Bae vbneRighivtowesoclaten.\.s. 2k ke a RLY 817
C. Money and Politics: Contributing and Spending .........cccccceeeeee: 817
D. Regulation of the Mass Media to Improve the Political
PPOCESS. Hs AR A Ae BOR Arteta) 817
Bie An@b NTI ARR Seeds cacccnicedatetas tet eartai MLN eemrema Me 818
Bepbenims LAimitations tai ion. AOA tk Be MR acco 819
III. Reinforcing Representative Democracy and Reducing Judicial
PA Se Reb OT ot eee or PO ee ee ek IO BU BRULSG ID WATT, 819
IV. The Right to Vote and Have One’s Vote Counted Equally................ 820
Beale ae Caran Ri ie. RST Actsasat anchored oe eeeeahnl eee ocee, Se UE 820
BU ATC ERO OVIL PTAA SILS Fate chet ce anccactbineaeen tanaeaccuseeababesiner
eee tvant dee ee ee 826
[Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections] ...........cccccccccssseeceseeeeeeeee 835
PROB GTS WOU GCS A RO ecic shuntssastsendnaciceusenia Gao eek el nsed 836
DaviswiiBanidemer *cccisteessccciavace eae ee LRUe 837
dae nd ccssiccsht
DRAW: ie HrOnOs nn Ge OR! (RAMA E AG. JINR 10 BAUR OCS ie 1k 837
shelby. (County, Alabama ve Holders... 2a A 850
Nee PrN GCOvASSOCIALE xexcachs ee ek kel Sree cea satan Sbauee eae nt es Ea 864
INAAG Revee la ba taerea a aeeos is bs tawcicrateseer ensanoratnnect sual AAA shoe eae 865
Barenblativ United States tae 2). Ak ROR aaa a RRS 869
WAAC PivaeButton® iiccicsesteastisic ineten to cecinssea
REO ROLAAE, BA t 870
Robertsrvs United States Iaycees wiscsccc uses tsveseves.ecorescdosouel sbogsaeetegosbates 870
Boy wcouts ot America: vs: Dale iiccsccsccaccsscctercncr boeeteces cee 879
ott dascebeks sssecin
Christian eral Society rMartinez 20...) NI ae ek 889
VI. Regulation of the Political Process to Preserve Its Integrity ............. 900
A. Money and Politics: Regulation of Personal Contributions and
RORPVCIC AUPE ET. ects A coarse eee educa ee es Be EE histewack 900
Duckies VialeOnkc SIA NAG TEM GRA BS 900
B. Money and Politics: Regulation of Expenditures by
eens Sovaaae em eentaraeeae907
(DORIS OPAULONIS xcs ia esvat a sactiet eee bUe cacencecetcansvensacde
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti® ...........cecesesseeeeeees 907
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ..............:::00008 908
C. Regulation of Campaign Promises and Access to the Ballot....... 929
BLOW ULALelA CO hes tece te cee esta Seto alee nea Svenaggensaeaavet tenes 929
PACU COV CCLOUFESIE Che eerie tices neoreteee ereeeenegeet snbeteons 929
theiaecsereee
VII. Regulation of the Mass Media to Improve the Political Process......... 930
Miami Herald Publishing Cofv-Tornillo* lelc cleeceseese es930

DPT REATING EQUALS: BQ UA iim re sein ccesesecseoseceteesevesoeses 931

eeeinicroretinceLquality Phe Text ee ail cohen caaeaeens 932
AMES LER OMANCLIONU NA Re. totes seated MRA TAM ae eee 933
WW Lea PCR SOTN 2-2/2 is EIA cee eda
Ea ENG: aces soe pete a nenetaatees 934
Crawhatrboce Equal Mean? a i0tt, Gin 8, OOM IAG atte 935
Dis Whatle<-Protection® ?<..siscstiaenndentee 936 eek RNAS
Tee Deyond- a DextuabApproacn ie iiric. isi. ene fasestiectsavstesationecbectsanetetetes 937
xx TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. Equal Protection and the HOW, WHAT, and WHO of Constitutional
Interpretations siAi.5 222100551, CU Uds a SaLD de selceena deee anes et een eins Heeeeeaa nena 939

Chapter 14. The Problems of Equal Protection: Suspect

Classifications isle.) icciictene: bd klete Ree eaeee ee ag ese: Tea AE ee ee 941
Io From Slaughter=House to: Carolene Products iciasts. sadaapsseasare-tpeve--e-oet 941
A; Race Relations sich: decade epephecwhpeceenese bteee es ee Pee ener 941
B... Economie Regulationywad.$:29-ee es Pa af ee oreeeeen--cee 943
C. Caste in America and the Shadow of Nazism ..........c:.:s0sssss.s000+ 944
Iker 4 Carolene Products caciece Tees eel eee cee rece psec eee eee 945
A. The Limited Scope of “Deferential Scrutiny” «...s00.5-)-ccasscsde--0-0000 947
B. The Developmentiof “Strict. Scrutiny 7tedez.coecere cere teeeeee 947
IILA:The Organization of the: Cases’. p21) ceric cee ace nec caeteeer eee 951
IV. Historical Background: The Promise and the Reality............. cee 951
Strauderv. West Virginia .2).0..4) .ctesteebeteseee tes be eee oe ee ee 951
Yick Wo v: Hopkins’ ..5..:3 4.osste.se stunceeaess eet eee 24
5..2.51 eee 955
Plessy v. Ferguson i....Sck eon Qe heed ade epee es sttaarmsttt 957
Vi 2Deferential Serutiny s2..45: ces cceoanseeees eee eee ee 963
Williamson vi'Lee Optical Co. ccscscc. 0.07: se05s- e000. eee Oe 963
VI. The Beginning of Suspect Classifications: Race and Ethnicity ......... 966
[Korematsu v. United States | sur eee weraes eecoe epee ke 966
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. .cds-rwe die eee aeee 967
Bolling ‘v.. Sharpes) 20vicsssassssseveact veapesaeacengeet oveatace pees eee eee eee OFZ
Brown Vv. Board of Education of Topekasdlcas2: Aen eee 974
The: Implementation of Brow? 28sec eee eee 976
Hernandez Vv. "Texas <11...-..2225/3.01: 5. segegeseres eoeeeenenee ee 978
Loving’ ¥) Virginia 05.2). 2.5 0 eed Cee saekan Oe coe ees pee ee ee 978
VII. Racially Discriminatory Purpose Versus Racially Disproportionate
Impact ..ataddend ann eR et oer eed a ae ae eee 983
[Regersivs Lodge)" >) Lascasa’l lemcetielneahhaieiett eee 985
VII. How to End Racial Inequality: Affirmative Action....................:. 985
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke®™ ........cccceeeeeeeeeeeeeee 985
Adarand’ Constructors Inc. +P enaial:r eee Saagenaees WC 987
Grutter v! Bollinger’) hi.c1s. s0s:s1sst0ss tien octets eae eee 999
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist.
NOv-1 ipcivin.gunvl Gael aiaadt WE eee ea ee ee 1018
Fisher'vUniversity,of/Texas.at Austin* eicce SS)OG eee neee 1040

Chapter 15. The Problems of Equal Protection: Somewhat

Suspicious Classifications and Fundamental Rights.............. 1041
Ineo Introductions, aia .Ac.. SAN GAGA sunul ie Aare ee ee eee 1041
A. What Classes/Classifications Are Suspect?.........::::.sssccscoesorssess 1042
B.,, What Is a “Fundamental” Right? is.9¢e. 24. ee 1046
C. What Constitutes a “Compelling” Governmental Interest? ...... 1047
II. Is the Court Actually Using a Two- (or Three-) Tiered Model? ........ 1048
A. . Continua: Versus Two, (or Three) Tiers conc 8 oe 1048
B. Construction of a Middle Ground: A Three—Tiered Test........... 1049
Like A Model: Without: Tiers? (206... sccc.0-0. Ree ee 1050
IV. The Scope and Permanence of Constitutional Meaning .................- 1053
 TABLE OF CONTENTS Xx

V. Suspect (or Somewhat Suspicious) Classifications ......c.ccccccscsceseeeseees 1053

JT GRSS EGPEnde RNC ee paces er ee ®a 10538
BON ero MIChardsON. i... 5-ccs nasa DAREM Ae. A cero’ 1054
Craig weOrenaligeeomd datlioetinwi to teamaalawall
edak. wal 1059
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan® ..........cceeeseeeeeeees 1064
PnrtedsSta tess Vargihla nuit, Sent. hcd. Hot RiaR eal Ae ced 1064
RM ONCAN rath ariel Geeet deena d ant adudl. voll! 1079
[Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections] ..........ccccceseeeeeeee 1079
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez ............ 1079
[Hams wiMeRAehaitict in geaMotht hie. Taano..cilook.ade 1089
te epmemexdal Orientanion hs oi.2) 0260s cccssecsoutesisvandoantld. ae Intianaha 1090
Homer vy sivans:. Sa Oe.u, Liber emebal 1090
Bakerwiotate,ol Vermont iasrn 0... hbo ewia saul wld. 1103
[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health] .......cce eee abely
IES Sta CES WIN ASOR so oi sicintscnsoncasvesesrocnenconnd@tERetell.y.solbIeaee 1Baisip
MAMET E MEAG ATPC OCIS, cossevsapsoconsvebesvosnicsson Pb Ceeebaal he.ce AEN 1135
annrtennst
PEULETOCTeaONy, suo Rail Lene tls ee ah aeons 1135
Skimmer... Ok a honia sci usssshvns eo Riuen arow bli) seach. 1135
PRE ELIS ee fi sovss uc Gesnc bv cvsvessctvepione nA RITRS ce LOI GE Re ey 1140
LING VGIAS V7 AOU 258s. cccarsso Lente a Laed 1140
nsevstth
[Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections] ..................000000 1140
RUBIN EAiC OE Fo oo os why doch capwds niin aoosvkomssndSMM ERLANNE. 2d uaa 1140
osudxrbnnove
Saar Oye) MOM P SOUS seria dts Oa ROO Le Oe UAT
ACI AI ROCs Crh het ian). lss te Ree co ah dck katie. 0M eR 1148
MSI PR Me Hee ec crepe is wrod dl aconenl com cv etaloos quad oAL Luna Oe 1156
Danderdgewi Walliamise72k. 5. RU OIG. «LGA A aha eae 1156
EERE AACA COTE IIE. A TIA, RIAD Ede RA AT EARL, Bison 1161
[San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez].......... 1162
LEZeCS OiBCVA EE bad em eee RELEASES LRAAEL ML MEEAS ORE POLE Od EM AACR 1162
SE Vlg e220 en ee eS COM MSE ASEM UREA AUR OERES eco 1 AGSs SU eae ree 1162
PUN ATA Vall VEITA, eas pvcirssheinain dea abate th kee eae MENON seats 36 1162
VAs) Vatelie Mces) bevel ct 1 inane oe nmneN CESK GET Sss RRA getrlaieh Ase Mire, 1163
VII. A New Model? Rational Basis “With Bite” and Without
PPC UEM LHOUG Hie chcaoas es iopaeona is wecnatectme AON domtatuad sesddanduattonteoatbodab weet satands1168
PAVED OCH: HALIM LTRS esneeentntnasaaubeceasaaanntiusada Soa eetabostinsinases 1168
Cleburne vs Cleburne-Livine-Center:.2.. 00a Aen BA, TETS

E: MAINTAINING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY:

PROTECTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS................ccsssssssssscssssssoneee 1187
I. Protecting Fundamental Rights as an Interpretive Approach ......... 1187
A. The Standards.of Fundamental Rights .........cc0.0....,.scssesedeceescees 1187
Bee Criticisnisiof the Approacn \i...022:-s:cc.cccncso-.
bedigebes ost MMe nnne 1188
Gh ATheDefendersiReplynThe Judged }. i ceiina eels. Gee Ee. 1190
D. The Defenders Reply: The Commentators..............ccceeeccsseeeeeeeees 1192
ian tne Planot- Chaptersil6=18 Joc. cian. qiahenn..auulnnnet oes 1193
Xxil TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 16. The Right to Property: To Individual Autonomy

AN. Back ws sivnccieescndsnnnsvsanaasnaunaliian tena
aspaaceSe eter nnwacnteh
nceansunslans araiaet1195
I. Property as a Civil Right .....0.0:.ss10..ss002. mupvarsosbeerentten lend hi etaneddeeeea se? 1195
II. The Development of Substantive Due Process ....0.. cee. ccseeteceeeeeeeee 1197
A. n
The: Transformatio of American Liaw iiiiten wte
eee eeeertec ene PEST
B. The Grangers, the ABA, and Social Darwinism .............:::00006 1199
C... The Judges'Embrace.Laissez. Haire «ices caseosssnvseverees ote na 1201
D. The End of Judicial Protection of Liberty of Contract............... 1202
Tie Property, Autonomy, and Constitutional Interpretation ................. 1203
John Locke, Property and the Ends of Political Society..................- 120%/
Federalist Nos LQ i gaicinc davies tiibedeseudecstenee Savenadeaad Mana dtaset aot se nee deren errata 1210
Fletcher Vir Peek [iii aiiviscsdndvdcde sees soetecawesPeco aeeesrtes eee ss
vcstvase prretiter 1214
Charles. River Bridge v. Warren. Bridgennt0.s..4:,.ieeae.ck-de eee 1218
[Dred Scottiv. Sandford] 22,2: GRO, Fe reese 1223
Manny VE 0s... k QIN vissessancewen evans ove neae etree meee ae ae EE creRna 1224
Stone Vi MISSISSIPPI ~<o..cceseccazeccuna tenteetnnlasen ROR Rete ntpetennn
ee eee 1230
Lochner veNew: YOrk. ..ccscccisciosceevtanetatereen euesnees
nentancen setae ker or ee 1230
Adkins'v..Childtren’s. Hospitallcc.c.sccccosu sseenseecon
ueeteeneaee- eee eeeeereeene 1236
West Coast: Hotel we Parrish .ccascusccdeccetcecsuencsennes stweeeneea 1243
eaneeeeaneeeeeeeen
[Wailliamson-v.. Lee Optical Coz} ..ci cis ee eee 1250
Ferguson wv. SKrupa@eanne 16 Os, Pe es ee 1250
Kelovv. New: Liorid oni...s.te ee. PI ee vas becker sees eee cee ee ere 1253
Penn: CentralTrans., Co.,v. New. York (Cityi es. ieee ee 1261
Lucas .v. South Carolina Coastal:Council:.......<...0- aes 1269

Chapter 17. Autonomy, Religious Freedom, and the Elusive

Quest for Governmental Neutrality Toward Religion............ 1283
if, The Interpretive Problerisis.!.Len2s8 ees tases hee eee 1284
A... What. Constitutes Establishment? .,.....:....-0-cdenolel», skeet aoe 1284
B... Free Exercise and the Police Power-.,......:5-s-s:s:-19: eeeeebeeeee 1237
C.. ‘Tensions Between Clauses :.:..5.(i cei: s0) Pee eee 1289
D>: The: Quest. for, Neutrality... jssc a.,.650 eee a eee 1290
E. What Help From the Approaches to Interpretation?................. 1292
Th. Free. Exercise and Public Purposes.........:.:::..-s:5.8¢s5:1.- Cee 1295
Davis-y.. Beason’... sscciusneseesk edie eect e aka ARE eee 1295
Minersville School: District v. Gobitisisacccs.!. cat eee 1298
West: Virginians Barnettenns sk i eeeet acc. nc eee ee 1307
Braunfeld v. Brown" i200 JAMO LEE ee ee ee 1313
Wisconsin:vi. Yoder. 2iuadcaccatht ad satin eee ee 1314
Thomasivs Review Boarders iit OR eee 13822
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of
Oregon: vs. Smith .anGannd.s. CRS OA Ae a ee 1328
Congress and the President Dissent From the Court’s View: The
Religious Freedom Restoration ACt ........c0....ccscccsseesstsceeeesenseeeeees 1340
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.......cccccccccesssseeceesseees 1341
City‘of Boerne’: Flores#:s. Much Ae kan sae ee 1344
Locke vii Davey. 0.4 BEA Be 1353
Hosanna—Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v.
BiB.
O Gish c WORSE EKO EG oe a ea 1356
 TABLE OF CONTENTS XXili

WAG, The Establishment Clause and the Elusive Quest for

Governmental Neutrality Toward Religion .........ccccccccscsssssssesesesesesees 1370
PSD GOL Neen VAM ORACLE. Mh AG LOMO), CRRA OW x torediad 13:70
Alunetonochool District v. Schemppe.sicfh..sstsssesie.ccsiovsseciadasedeceeds 1375
[hee vewWeisman eta Pets AAR PRA OY PA 1381
Zelman vy cimumnong—Harris 7... Menon od Be Oe Vo OOS lo 1381
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of
“ES CLG AUR aap coh meted aepetsMae,Buh €or elon Bate Kai eae 8 aa 1398
Conscicnttouc Omiection noe te ek ieee tee eee bat ead a PEE 1409
Popeonec Umivercityavis United States acorn... geese ete 1410

Chapter 18. Individual Autonomy: Personal Liberty, Privacy,

OL CPSO DN OO serie ee ae PETES 1413
Pea Tis the: Constitution? ica science ee 1414
Hee ViO)Shalldnterpret?i sient ee aS Tee TE 1418
ARPT Wironbnter pret? tater. ok .: SIS MACS SOLO SA ARP aL IES, 1420
IV. Personal Liberty: Antecedents From the Era of Lochner v.
IN MON RDFA t Hatie wit et Aion wis sites a ee ete Se a ae NatsFE ERY SET 1422
ICV ELI NGDraskar pti atee seth ebeicerees See Ee SERRE Oe 1422
Evercey.SOGiety Ol OISEETSi vessel siebas abe ee Le 1426
V. The Right to Citizenship: The Right to Have Rights................cc0. 1428
pPrapec Duties) ae: 2 INO? SOT TE GOT B es RIALS eo BSR IC OIE: 1428
Mitw Che hichtto Bodily Intesrity-...3.sicstaaiecadits ce reas eee 1428
faacopson veMassachisetts | -15-23) i027. Lea en eS 1428
PCE Clear ret retreat roves rer nne ROC ed, Rae a neon 1 eed 1429
[Skanneninr Okiaho midi: Aare Ra Meee 1431
PUCCINI AAs QUIGONTIIACE oye s3 oe a EN OE ee 1432
EN EASTUDE On UAV ACV ot totter sss cs5a vngdiicvoiaa qth Ges Comepentorets on PURI Foe aan eam 1432
Mase OMM ON aVer” OINMIECLIC UU|athe. svcnst-pesac-cstecteansreareehec raered codes tooanes baer adres1432
EEOC RUAY A Ia ar ak eas oe in cons asco nase Fe Ie corn PO ee tae 14848
elIER CRY AC re, oc ce th hae ote alk ot- ach aegert eogicgee aa teo toute ent ae 1444
TESTS Egy SRL TE bel eee ae ee See my Me ean a Cc 2 are oe 1452
PTAedtarenlnoOd VE CASCY ccd) susie latent ees 1453
MEO SN ATTN, eS et tet cece nuh oh incon ts ecteaslar heme sen deene rae uaa atom re aes 1481
Vali Tnemsent-to Family: initeority ic. 2.5.1.0. 6ee oe tet Botccenacessoseos socnchseBebees 1482
RoR TeGeV UE PUTRIEN|', 26 cate cas ese cack cans snea Matec ge otiovesdaacecsnssteNbotadauvioenssys1482
PARC wie ast © LeVelAUOl soos secovecestnceosa ree sae orang uae tg fap wndeceucansnedee 1482
PZANOGI Wn EVO NULL 8.55 £88 oo nce oe=b tence SEEMED Sipveaesisenoseanoessadhert doaban 1488
DWitcmael Selves Gerald A) | ech shcacse A Sete sus decd aat token Sanden vocddauntoantes 1488
IX. The Rights to Same-Sex Intimate Association and Marriage.......... 1489
BOWE Saat CWA IO oh ED Rin odo ch aac cdooske Unde debs ccads Masadhestyatigdh keke tke eas 1489
PC EN MMOAh esd I sans sash xs Dasaystemh tara dce cotacenestoronietenescateresewms 1502
Pe iay MOU ALE OL y CLIMOUD | go cnec sialic: -capacgescernstendeeneoges tomeesseosourcime et:1520
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ........0.......cccseedeccsssenseeneees 1520
FRM HSMN IC UTECOMUILOM che | iavoees dunes de chad ocnnngs tears tossm ecamdecebentecndceastecacpocessrebes 1543
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health .............c. cscs scoesseuees 1543
Neal td CHR PAC MVC KS DOUG onsacca nara aouvas-cietoanestcssosawoegees senrioenacssonerosebse ves: 1554
XXiVv TABLE OF CONTENTS

XI. Is the Constitution a Charter of Negative Liberties or a Charter

of Positive Benefits ?.........8steneisols.ebaQiues
sabe pecs rehleeode bceeey eee 1572
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services................. 05 72.

PART V. CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY IN THE

CRUCIBLE OF CRISIS

Chapter 19. Constitutional Interpretation and Emergency

POW O'S 55s si cgeBosios vv cusosesenn dens Soametes Sanpete aaauaee ageasea en een eee eee 1583
I,.., Preserving the Constitution and the Nation...:..s....ssassceces+c-nnnspcb ooh 1584
A..« lgnoring the Constitutional Text...203.2-.5,..50 eee eee 1584
B. , Suspending the Constitutional Text ...:2.4-Ssscekp pacers eee 1586
C... Interpreting the Constitution....;....<2-:0::--<:-2-0: Mpapsese veeae eee 1588
IL.cp inter Armes Silent Leges? o ccceccccccoscusctsccecBipecctacee aes a ee 1590
ILL... ;What-Exactly Is an “Emergency?” .....:.:.5;..-cc.tyase cases tia see 1591
Thomas Jefferson to.J.B. Colvin ....:0..c.<0-0:.0:-des-+--deeeeee ee ee 1591
Ex, Parte Mernyimans.« awit cite: scant ere rate ae Eeeceaee 1593
lineoln's. Message.to Congress ::.2..0200.<:-2-1<etesssoussoanseceees) ee ee ee 159"7.
Ex parte: Milligan s,s. asiecacs dags-osacsanocsanssosueoeease ciee en eee 1600
Korematsu_ vy. United States 2s. x. .222..:-.-10.-0saseade ek ee eee 1606
[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer].........cc::ccccccccsesssscceeeceeesens 1614
United States v. United States District Court® ..............0.ccccccccsssceeees 1614
[Hamdiv.: Rumsfeld] *:;....;. 2:5 .asicheneatas geen oer een ne aaa eee 1615
f[Hamdi vi Rumsfeld) ccs ec s:. casts (ensures heels eee 1616
Hamdan v. Rumisfeld™ ..|..;....;..0:csacccnsenconcoceosestieee ee 1616
[Boumediene-v Bush]: .2).jss3.0.00ce. Reeaueectacte. ga i ae 1618
BushivSGOr @yocsesiss aeecgeaaduag & Oeste ales ce oes a ee ee 1619

EEPilO SUG svduinsncdtnsconnserscnsneasncbssuagbetteattacucanasaetenxs

caeaseacan dace eee 1637

Appendix A. Table of U.S. Supreme Court Justices ..........cccccsssceeee 1641

Appendix B. The Constitution of the United States of

AINCTICA saris Micecaecsecosetiaaetedeeaeaeet
otek tee eee p26 2h OTRAS 1647
TABLE OF CASES
The principal cases are in bold type. Cases marked with an * are available at
www.princeton.edu/aci.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v.
United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55
S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570 (1935)
oon ns nen nee eee 429, 522, 628, 651, 1203
Abington School District v.
Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct.
1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1968)---- 158,
1285, 1289, 13826, 1375
Ableman v. Booth*, 2 U.S. 506, 21
How. 506, 16 L.Ed. 169 (1858)- 267,
355, 366, 371, 545
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52
L.Ed.2d 261 4977)----------- 807, 873
Abrams v. Johnson, 514 U.S. 1013,
Ions -Ctwlebsalat bela. 20.212
(1995) ----------------------------------- 225
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S.
616, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173
Aho) eee 693, 697, 703, 719, 721,
729, 783
ACLU of Kentucky v. Mercer County,
432 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2005) -- 1409
Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161,
28 S.Ct. 277, 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908)
wooo 2 2-22-02 2-2-2 ---------------- ZO Zon
Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 37
S.Ct. 662, 61 L.Ed. 13836 (1917)
oes 1236, 1423
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46,
67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903 (1947)
SINS) AO). Ay SAS Ie) aia 1 Koy
393, 1454
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S.Ct.
2097, 182 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995) -- 934,
935, 948, 949, 962, 987, 1001, 1020,
1049, 1066, 1415, 1613
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261
U.S. 525, 43 S.Ct. 394, 67 L.Ed.
785 (1923) ---144, 1236, 1244, 1251,
1355, 14238, 1459
AFL v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 61 S.Ct.
568, 85 L.Ed. 855 (1941) ---------- 694
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87
S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed.2d 757 (1967)
a2------------------------ 205, 1416, 1428
Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100
S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980)
ween nen nn nena enn nnn nnn ene ene 1278
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 117
S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997)
2Bde Bee Seen a ee 1286, 1383
Akron v. Akron Center for
Reproductive Health, Inc. (Akron
I), 462 U.S. 416, 103 S.Ct. 2481, 76
L.Ed.2d 687 (19838)------- 1419, 1442,
1453, 1458
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 119
S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999)
none cane nnn nec enn nner renee nee 69, 213; 353
Allegheny County v. Greater
Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573,
109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472
(1989) ---------------------------------- 163
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 1250, 105
S.Ct. 51, 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984)-- 77
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578,
178.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832 (1897)
wo-------- bA0 S12
o Zod ule le ba
Allied Structural Steel Co. v.
Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 98 S.Ct.
2716, 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978) ----1223
Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 99
S.Ct. 1589, 60 L.Ed.2d 49 (1979)
wn anne enn nnn nner e nee 1045
American Booksellers
Association, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771
F.2d 323 (7th Cir.1985)----700, 719,
739, 764
American Communications Asso. v.
Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674,
94 L.Ed. 925 (1950)----------------- 721
American Party v. White, 415 U.S.
767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744
iyOe aren eet te hl ach 873
Anderson v. Celebreeze*, 460 U.S.
780, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d
547 (1988) -------------------- 929, 1623
Andrus v. Allard, 188 U.S. 14, 23
S.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366 (1908) -1272
Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U.S. 769, 17
Otto 769, 2 S.Ct. 91, 27 L.Ed. 468
(1888) ---------------------------------- 196
Application of Georgetown College,
331 F.2d 1010 (D.C.Cir.1964) --1289
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d
435 (2000) --------------------------------- 2
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378
U.S. 500, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d
CRO INGA emt tanee 1142, 1436
Archie v. Racine, 847 F.2d 1211 (7
SER (CTer) Nasedeep pers Bieins Loaie 670
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25,
92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530
(1972) -----------------2--2-22- 2-2200--- WOME
Arizona Christian School Tuition
Organization v. Winn, , 563 U.S.
.., 1o1,8,Ct, 1436,.179 L.Hd.2d 523
(2011) --------------------------------- 1359
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 115
S.Ct.1185, 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995)
wn nnn nnn een eee 1526
Arkansas Writers v. Ragland, 481
W822, 107 8:Ct. 1722, Jo L.Bds2d
209 (1987) -------------------2-2------- 803
XXV
XXvi TABLE OF CASES
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252,
97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977)
Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S.
40, 80 S.Ct. 1568, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554
(1960) ------------------------- LE AOR
Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94
S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974)
Arver v. United States (The Selective
Draft Law Cases), 245 U.S. 366, 38
S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349 (1918) ---- 9,
780, 791, 1302
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,
535 Us 284,122 SiC 1389e 152
L.Ed.2d 403 (2002) ------------------ 770
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley
Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct.
466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936)---- 521, 866
Associated Press v. Walker, , 389
U.S. 28, 88 S.Ct. 106, 19 L.Ed.2d
OSS et eee eee ala
Atkins v. Virginia, 5386 U.S. 304, 122
S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)
penesdedenarrcinbendeeemn ceed 107, 204, 1537
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 110 S.Ct.
1391, 108 L.Ed.2d 652 (1990) ---908
Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 5380, 74
Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 44 (Hawai'l
1993) --------- TANOS HGS aiken tn 4:
Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U.S.
499, 51 S.Ct. 228, 75 L.Ed. 482
(1981) ------------------------- 11386, 1627
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82
S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) 172,
261 273, 008,014. 102-14 620:
835, 1087
Baker v. State of Vermont, 170 Vt.
194, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt.1999) ---- 275,
1052, 1108, 1417, 1520
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294
U.S. 511, 55 S.Ct. 497, 79 L.Ed.
1032 (19385)-------------------------- 1151
Ballard v. United States, 322 U.S. 78,
64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148 (1944)
woe ee ne nen n eee n ene n ene e nee e ene 1067
Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U.S. 877,
76.9.Ct. 133, 100\L. Ed. 774 (1955)
bi 2 ESS Se A ON Bed ot BE 977
Barenblatt v. United States*, 60
U.S. 109, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d
1115 (1959) ----- 138, 418, 416, 702,
704, 817, 869
Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 122
S.Ct. 2097, 153 L.Ed.2d 230 (2002)
Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct.
1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1484 (1959)------ 709
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7
Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833)122, 132
Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 73
S.Ct. 1031, 97 L.Ed. 1586 (1953)
ween nen n nnn n nnn n nnn n nnn nen ne ne eens 77, 866
Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S.
442, 74 S.Ct. 650, 98 L.Ed. 829
(1954)---------------------------200---+ 1204
Bartels v. lowa, 262 U.S. 404, 43 S.Ct.
628, 67 L.Ed. 1047 (1928) --688, 691
Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 80
S.Ct. 412, 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1960)- 141
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106
S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)
wn nn nn nnn nnn 954
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S.
250212 Si CrmiZonoo L.Ed. 919
(1952) -699, 704, 719, 735, 742, 768
Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130,
96 S.Ct. 1357, 47 L.Ed.2d 629
(1976)----------------------------------- 842
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct.
1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) ------- 16
Bendix Corp. v. Midwesco, 486 U.S.
888, 108 S.Ct. 2218, 100 L.Ed.2d
896 (1988) ----------------------------- 417
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89
S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)
wane nnnne nnn en ec ec ee ec ee ee en eneeenee 1265027
Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S.
45, 29 S.Ct. 33, 53 L.Ed. 81 (1908)
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87
S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78,
55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935)
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75
S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954) ----- 130,
1254, 1274
Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216, 104
S.Ct. 2312, 81 L.Ed.2d 175 (1984)
ponte erase Seas a ie GA EA
Blodgett v. Holden, , 275 U.S. 142, 48
S.Ct. 105, 72 L.Ed 206 (1927) -- 857
Board of Directors of Rotary Intern’]
v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S.
537, 107 S.Ct. 1940, 95 L.Ed.2d 474
(1987) ----------=---2--2--=--20-
222-5208 884
Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson
Central School Dist., Westchester
Cty. v. Rowley, , 458 U.S. 176, 102
S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982)
Board of Education v. Dowell, 498
US, 237,117 S.Ct.:630) 112 L. kd. 2d
715 (1991) ----------------------------- 977
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S.
564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548
(1972) -----------20-22-2--2s0eeenennenens 153
Board of Trustees of the University of
Alabama vy. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356,
121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866
(2001)-------------------------+--- 353, 601

Bob Jones University v. United
States*, 461 U.S. 574, 103 S.Ct.
2017, 76 L.Ed.2d 157 ---- 892, 1410
Bob—Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan,
333 U.S. 28, 68 S.Ct. 358, 92 L.Ed.
455 (1948) --------------<=----------... 947
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,
91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 118 (1971)
wren eee ne rere eee -- 2-2 ---------- 1044, 1167
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 74
S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954) -126,
134, 274, 372, 418, 934, 972, 982,
989, 1054, 1078, 1122, 1134, 1523,
1562
Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S.Ct.
339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235 (1966) ------- 728
Bond v. United States, ,564U.S.___
131 S.Ct. 2355, 180 L.Ed.2d 269
(2011)----------------------------------- 853
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct.
1157, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988) ----- 746
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466
U.S. 485, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d
502 (1984) ----------------------------- 742
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723,
128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41
(2008) ----------- 492, 494, 1589, 1618
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97
S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977)--75
Bowen v. Gilliard, , 483 U.S. 587, 107
S.Ct. 3008, 97 L.Ed.2d 485 (1987)
Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 698, 106 S.Ct.
2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) --- 1330
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186,
106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140
(1986)-- 42, 137, 147, 151, 347, 886,
1095, 1097, 1102, 1415, 1416, 1489,
1508, 1544
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714,
106 S.Ct. 3181, 92 L.Ed.2d 5838
(1986) --------------- 430, 526, 615, 904
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147
L.Ed.2d 554 (2000) ---817, 879, 891,
900, 1367, 1416, 1517
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616,
6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886)
wane nnn e nen n enna nena nn n-ne -- 15 es9 STA35
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 21
L.Ed. 442 (1872) ---- 942, 1055, 1480
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S.
444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430
(1969) ----- 226, 701, 708, 718, 727,
734, 748, 751, 765, 781, 883, 1094
Braunfeld v. Brown’, 366 U.S. 599,
81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961)
Se eee 1313, 1316
Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics,
1998 WL 88743 (Alaska
Super.1998) ------------------------- isto
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277, 58
S.Ct. 205, 82 L.Ed. 252 (1987) -- 206,
207
TABLE OF CASES XXVIi
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601,
93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830
(OTB) heesenne ste te an eeeeenn 753
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U.S. 491, 105 S.Ct. 2794, 86
Tani? diO45 COS5)\es-s--ense sea 764
Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, I, 347 U.S. 4838, 74 S.Ct.
686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) --5, 22, 28,
Wiel te2005 2088210) 26252675
352, 367, 370, 371, 389, 414, 496,
812, 825, 828, 847, 848, 865, 946,
948, 962, 968, 967, 978, 980, 1004,
10238, 1063, 1082, 1088, 1355, 1387,
1441, 1447, 1460, 1480, 1496, 1523,
1639
2 Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, IT, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct.
7538, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955)------- 974,
1024, 1461
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants
Nssimo 045 Sas al ins: Cbs
2729, 180 L.Ed.2d 2729 (2011)- 771
Brown v. EPA, 521 F.2d 827 (9th
Cir.1975) ------------------------------ 619
Brown v. Hartlage*, 456 U.S. 45,
1102'S: Ct 11523) 71 bd 2di732
(1982) ---------------------------------- 929
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash.,
588-ULS. 2116123 S.Ct, 1406, 155
L.Ed.2d 376 (2008), --------------- 1256
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278,
56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936)
wn nnn wenn enna nnn - = 2-22 -- 2225-22 - eee 944
Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U.S. 914, 92
S.Ct. 2507, 33 L.Ed.2d 326 (1972)
Brown v. Socialist Workers, 459 U.S.
87, 103 S.Ct. 416, 74 L.Ed.2d 250
(1982) ---------------------------- 873, 905
Brown—Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217
U.S. 563, 30 S.Ct. 578, 54 L.Ed. 883
(1910) ---------------------------------- 943
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 38
S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149 (1917) --- 948,
972
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct.
584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927) ----- 698,
943, 1136, 1139, 1166, 1429
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96
S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976)
BD, HLA Ud .oo2) Glico. 900)
905, 910, 989, 1048
Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 92
S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972)
wane nnn e nnn nn nnn e eee n nnn eee ee 1045, 1165
Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426, 37
S.Ct. 435, 61 L.Ed. 830 (1917) -1236
Burnham v. Superior Court of
California, 495 U.S. 604, 110 S.Ct.
2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) -- 155,
1075 ;
Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 95
S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 469 ee
ae es Ser tae Eee ees ee 5
XXVili TABLE OF CASES
Burns v. Fortson, 410 U.S. 686, 93
S.Ct. 1209, 35 L.Ed.2d 633 Seed .
2.b Siete Benek Bake res eee hee 1
Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 112
S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992)
wn nnn nen nn eee enn eee e ne 746, 747, 754
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct.
525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000)-- 6, 16,
64, 171, 263, 356,813; 1591; 1619
Bush v. Palm Beach County
Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 121
S.Ct. 471, 148 L.Ed.2d 366 (2000)
wane enn n nnn nn enn n nen ee ene ne ene ee 1623, 1628
Butler v. The Queen, [1992] 1 S.C.R.
452 (Can.)------------------------------ 769
C.K. v. New Jersey Department of
Health and Human Services, , 92
F.3d 171 (3"4 Cir. 1996) --------- 1161
C.K. v. Shalala, 883 F.Supp. 991
(D.N.J.1995) ------------------------ 1161
Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380,
99 S.Ct. 1760, 60 L.Ed.2d 297
(1979) ----------------------------------- 149
Cabell v. Chavez—Salido, 454 U.S.
432, 102 S.Ct. 735, 70 L.Kd.2d 677
(1982) --------------------------------- 1045
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 3 Dall.
386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) 19, 54, 108,
114, 126; 133, 136,145, 193) 210;
3895, 1198; 1217, 1256; 1416, 1420
Califano v. Jobst, 484 U.S. 47, 98
S.Ct. 95, 54 L.Ed.2d 228 (1977) 1167
Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S.W.2d
250 (Tenn.App.1996) ------------- 1508
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S.
296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1218
(1940) ------ 127, 733, 742, 760, 866,
1288, 1301, 1326, 1330, 1400, 1436
Capital Square Review Bad. v.
Pinette, 510 U.S. 1307, 114 S.Ct.
626, 126 L.Ed.2d 636 (1998)------ 758
Carey v. Population Services, 431
U.S. 678, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d
675 (1977) -- 1164, 1417, 1455, 1562
Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85
S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965)
ween nen n nnn n nnn n nnn n nnn n nnn 206, 853, 1159
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S.
238, 56 S.Ct. 855, 80 L.Ed. 1160
(1986) 2 808 ens 4.628, 648, 1203
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S.
748, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 162 L.Ed.2d
658 (2005) --------------------------- 1579
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,
315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86
L.Ed. 1031 (1942) ---- 699, 732, 736,
742, 760, 776, 781, 797
Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 95
S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975) 815
Charles River Bridge v. Warren
Bridge, 36 U.S. 420, 11 Pet. 420, 9
L.Ed. 773 (1837)----------- 1198, 1218
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S.
1, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831) ----- 822
Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas
R. Co., 135 U.S. 641, 10 S.Ct. 965,
34 L.Ed.2d 295 (1890)------------- 670
Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v.
Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S.
108, 68 S.Ct. 481, 92 L.Ed. 568
(1948) ------------------------+--------- 487
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire,
219:U.S. 549, 31 S.Ct. 259, 55 L.Ed.
328 (1911) ---------------------------- 1244
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. v.
Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S.Ct. 581,
41 L.Ed. 979 (1897)----------- L222,
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 2
Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1798) ----- Files
425
Christian Legal Society v.
Martinez, 561 U.S. __, 180 S.Ct.
2971, 177 L.Ed.2d 838 (2010)-- 809,
817, 889
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,
Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S.
520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d
472 (1998) --1287, 13840, 1346, 1353,
1405
Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 50
S.Ct. 360, 74 L.Ed. 950 (1930)
Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S.
701, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 23 L.Ed.2d 647
(1969) ---------------------------------- 1045
Citizens Against Rent
Control/Coalition for Fair Housing
v. City of Berkeley, Cal., 454 U.S.
290, 102 S.Ct. 4384, 70 L.Ed.2d 492
(1981)----------------------------------- 872
Citizen Publishing Co. v. United
States, 454 U.S. 290, 102 S.Ct. 434,
70 L.Ed.2d 492 (1981) ------------ 1331
Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, 558 U.S.
310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d
753 (2010)--------- 817, 907, 908, 934
City Council v. Taxpayers for
Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 104 S.Ct.
2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984) ----- 875
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S.
507, 117 8.Ct. 2157,:138 L.Kd.2d
624 (1997)--2638, 275, 330, 338, 431,
601, 648, 1844
City of Rome v. United States, 446
U.S. 156, 100 S.Ct. 1548, 64 L.Ed.2d
119 (1980) ---------------------------+- 852
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct.
18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1888)----- 638, 642,
933, 942, 1092, 1347
Clark v. Community for Creative
Non—Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 104
S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984)
wane nn en en en eee n ence ene e ene n eee n eee e eee 774
Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 108 S.Ct.
eas 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988)-- 1044,
1050

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living
Center, 473 U.S. 432, 105 S.Ct.
3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) --- 346,
949, 1043, 1063, 1088, 1102, 1115,
1175, 1255, 1431, 1497, 1510, 1526,
1542
Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414
U.S. 632, 94 S.Ct. 791, 39 L.Ed.2d
5241974) ---+---+----24---0---2-0-2-- 1483
Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S.
14, 67 S.Ct. 18, 91 L.Ed. 12 (1946)
warn e nner eee e ee eeeee eee 2-222 ------------ 1297
Clinton v. City of New York*, 524
U.S. 417, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141
L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) ---------- 430, 540
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15,
91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284
aaah 24, 699, 734, 751, 759, 798,
Cohens v. Virginia. 19 U.S. 264, 5
Ui. Hd257 (1821) ----==------+-2-=<-== 355
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 66
S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946)
Rowse ages ass SSeS Ese 692, 702, 820, 821
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59
S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939)
sgt ced Se 22 Scenes S 111, 569, 821
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 56
S.Ct. 252, 80 L.Ed. 299 (1935)-- 127,
itikayal
Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113, 20
L.Ed. 122 (1870) -------------- 547, 566
Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7t
Cir.1978) ------------------------ 740, 765
Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S.
115, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d
261 (1992) --------------------------- 1557
Colorado Republican Federal
Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518
US. 604, 116 S.Ct. 2309, 135
L.Ed.2d 795 (1996)------------------ 906
Columbia Broadcasting Sys. v.
Democratic National Committee,
412 U.S. 94, 93 S.Ct. 2080, 36
L.Ed.2d 772 (1978)------------------ 702
Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262
U.S. 51, 48 S.Ct. 486, 67 L.Ed. 858
TS) ee 2 a aie 822
Commission for Public Educ. &
Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413
U.S. 756, 98 S.Ct. 2955, 37 L.Ed.2d
948 (1978) --------------------------- 1327
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 106 S.Ct.
3245, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) ----- 535
Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842
S.W.2d 487 (Ky.1992) ------------ 1508
Connally v. General Construction
Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70
L.Ed. 322 (1926) --------------------- 127
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103
S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 pune
Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v.
Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y. , 447
TABLE OF CASES Xxix
U.S. 530, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 65
THeZavS MONO SO) sessensseeeee-
ase 925
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78
S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5, 3 L.Ed.2d
19 (1958) ---- 28, 267, 308, 333, 355,
370, 977, 1160, 13851
Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 35
S.Ct. 240, 59 L.Ed. 441 (1915) 1201,
IDEs eam
Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F.Cas. 546
(C.C.E.D.Pa.1828) ---- 126, 188, 571,
1942) 1154-1563
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense &
Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 105
S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985)
anna nee en nn nn ne eee n nee eee - 22 891
Corporation of Presiding Bishop of
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327,
107 S.Ct. 2862, 97 L.Ed.2d 273
(1987) -----------------------------=--- 1366
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523
U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140
L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998)--------------- 1506
Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 95
S.Ct. 541, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975)
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 85
S.Ct. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965)
Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 31
S.Ct. 688, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911) - 605
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 31 S.Ct.
688, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911) ---------- 853
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97
S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976)
----42, 998, 1031, 1046, 1049, 1059,
1078, 1088, 1108, 1115, 1167, 1168,
1178, 1174, 1176, 1184, 1469
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 67
S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546 (1947)
Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35, 18
L.Ed. 745 (1867)----- 126, 572, 1142,
MAT ee AAiy
Crawford v. Marion County Election
Board, 553 U.S. 181, 128 S.Ct.
1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008) -- 816
Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86,
11 S.Ct. 13, 34 L.Ed. 620 (1890)
wenn ene n een ener n ene n ne 120, 1231
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri
Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261,
110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224
(1990) ------- 1078, 1287, 1289, 1415,
1458, 1548, 1555
Cumming v. Board of Education of
Richmond County, 175 U.S. 528, 20
S.Ct. 197, 44 L.Ed. 262 (1899) - 943,
968
Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 59
S.Ct. 379, 83 L.Ed. 441 (1989) -- 523
Curtin v. Benson, 222 U.S. 78, 32
S.Ct. 31, 56 L.Ed. 102 (1911) ---1272
XXX TABLE OF CASES
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388
U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d
1094 (1967)---------------------------- valll
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709,
125 S.Ct. 21138, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020
(2005) ---------------- 1352, 1358, 1400
Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462, 114
S.Ct. 1719, 128 L.Ed.2d 497 ene
wn nena nnn nnn nnn nnn nen nnn eee ee 74
Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S.
654, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 69 L.Ed.2d 918
(1981) ------------------------------------ 65
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S.
471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491
(1970) ------- 1047, 1082, 1098, 1156,
1167, 1174, 1182, 1206
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17
U.S. 518, 4 L.Ed. 629 (1819)----- 193,
356, 1198, 1218, 1230
Davis v. Bandemer™%, 478 U.S. 109,
106 S.Ct. 2797, 92 L.Ed.2d 85
(1986) --------------- 815, 835, 837, 838
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10
S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)
we neeee een neennee 1094, 1288, 1295, 1302
De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 57
S.Ct. 255, 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937) --124,
127, 138, 691, 728, 765, 866, 1416
Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211,
39 S.Ct. 252, 63 L.Ed. 566 (1919)
wane nen enn nn enn nn nnn en ee ee enn OS i 2deaiZ9
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312,
94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164
(1974) a22n-=s nna io aoe ea sete eee nen 1016
Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450
U.S. 107, 101 S.Ct. 1010, 67 L.Ed.2d
82 (1981) ------------------------------- 873
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S.
494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137
(1951). ----- 418, 686, 694, 699, 702,
704, 718, 720, 728, 739, 1613
Department of Agriculture v.
Moreno, 418 U.S. 528, 93 S.Ct.
2821, 37 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978)--- 1094,
1122; 1510
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Dept. of Social Services, 489
U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103
L.Ed.2d 249 (1989) 2548, 937, 1088,
1249, 1418, 1542, 1572
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 106
S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986)
spp ROLLE fee a 1497
Dickerson v. United States, 528 U.S.
1072, 120 S.Ct. 849, 145 L.Ed.2d
662 (2000) Bivninn Seen cebnnsateemasce 83
Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S.Ct.
510, 65 L. Ed. GOZO Di) seeeee =ores Tela
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171
L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) --- 179, 211, 627
Doe v. University of Michigan, 721
F.Supp. 852 (E.D.Mich.1989) ----740
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374,
114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304
(1994)------------ 412, 415, 1205, 1280
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353,
83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)
So sSosacce 207, 828, 1044, 1047, 1159
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.
393, 19 How. 3938, 15 L.Ed. 691
(1856) --71, 108, 181, 246, 264, 272,
811, 385, 948, 960, 1029, 1111,
1199, 1223, 1476, 1562, 1635, 1639
Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur.
Ct. H. R. (1981) -------------------- 1507
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S.
304, 66 S.Ct. 606, 90 L.Ed. 688
(1946)----------+----2-----2--- 1589, 1606
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145,
88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491
(1968) sae. 13-43. .c apes 127, 1147
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92
S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972)
-- 816, 876, 1046, 1048, 1152, 1170
Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S.
307, 3 L.Ed. 232 (1810) ------ 70, 466
Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant &
Rawle 330 (Pa.1825)- 268, 302, 306,
408
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234,
121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430
(2001) ---------------------------------- 848
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578,
107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510
(1987)------------------------- 1286, 1405
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160,
62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119 (1941)
wane nee ee ee eneee en e- 130, 207, 1142, 1149
EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 103
S.Ct. 1054, 75 L.Ed.2d 18 (1988)
wore nee en ene n enna eee n ene e en ee eee 592, 595
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92
S.Ct. 1029.35 L: Ed.2d 349 (1972)
-- 147, 151, 1086, 1417, 1436, 1455,
1490, 1503, 1557
Elk Grove Unified School District v.
Newdow, 540 U.S. 1101, 124 S.Ct.
1124, 157 L.Ed.2d 884 (2004)-- 167,
1285
Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U.S. 435,
104 8.Ct. 1883, 80 L.Ed.2d 428
(1984) )--~2- 2225S oso soe ote ceeen ane 877
Elrod v. Burns, 424 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct.
1095, 47 L. Ed.2d 308 (1976) =---- 807
Employment Division v. Smith,
494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108
L.Ed.2d 876 (1990)--- 263, 339, 601,
895, 1290, 1321, 1328, 1340, 1342,
1345, 1862, 13867, 1474
Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas
Power and Light Co., 459 U.S. 400,
1038 S.Ct. 697, 74 L. Ed.2d 569
(1983)------------+--------------------- 1223
Engelv. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82
S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962)
soeeeeeeee 158, 1285, 1327, 1370, 1376

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97,
89 S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968)
Saaaiaaaeeaeeeeeeee 1285, 1399
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64,
58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)
nea 1623
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97
S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)
onan enna ee 22-22 -------------------------- 1574
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96
S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) 2,
1416
Eu v. San Francisco County
Democratic Central Comm., 489
U.S. 214, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 108
L.-Eidi2d 271 (1989). -----------+---:- 910
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S.
365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303
(W926) enon n nnn none L262 5203
Everson v. Ewing Township, 330 U.S.
1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947)
AL Z 8G, 290 S24 eo 4ST),
1390, 1399, 1446
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 781,
BOE. Bdj849)(1887)is-1-2-2-5--->---- 109
Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75, 2 L.Ed.
554 (1807) ----------------------+------ 480
Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 65 S.Ct.
208, 89 L.Ed. 243 (1944) -----92, 489
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 32
How. Pr. 241, 18 L.Ed. 366 (1866)
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 19
L.Ed. 264 (1868) -70, 431, 464, 568,
1605
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F.Cas. 144
(C.C.D.Md.1861) ---- 465, 480, 1586,
1593
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18
L.Ed. 281 (1866) 465, 472, 481, 490,
1584, 1586, 1600, 1613
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct.
1, 87 L.Ed. 3 (1942) --471, 489, 1606
Ex parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. 243,
17 L.Ed. 589 (1868) ------ 1584, 1605
Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 10
Otto 339, 25 L.Ed. 676 (1879)--- 210,
324, 330, 648, 860
Ex parte Yarbrough (The Ku Klux
Cases), 110 U.S. 651, 4S.Ct. 152, 28
L.Ed. 274 (1884) -------------- BOAWOla
Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 85, 19 L.Ed.
332 (1868) ----------------------------- 467
Examining Bad. v. Flores de Otero,
426 U.S. 572, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 49
L.Ed.2d 65 (1976) --------- 1045, 1047
F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, ,
253 U.S. 412, 40 S.Ct. 560, 64 L.Ed.
989 (1920) --------------------------- 1085
Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S.
284, 47 S.Ct. 406, 71 L.Ed. 646
(looTee £58 8 ice 688, 691, 715
Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 67
S.Ct. 1613, 91 L.Ed. 2043 i glee,
TABLE OF CASES Xxxi
FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.,
508 U.S. 307, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124
[i Bd 2dl21,45(1
908) neste denis 632
FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468
U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d
DTS) (LOCA \inanseivenastnanceannd
bees804, 818
FCC y. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S.
726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073
(OG 78) nasties
asc alot 744, 768
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal
Campaign Committee, 533 U.S.
ABV AZ S.Ct, 230), 150 L, bd2d
WGAOORAN AS is <a coho 906
Federal Election Comm’n v.
Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 123 S.Ct.
2200, 156 L.Ed.2d 179 (2003) --- 926
Federal Election Comm’n v.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life,
Inc., 475 U.S. 1068, 106 S.Ct. 1373,
89 L.Ed.2d 599 (1986) ------------- 909
Federal Election Commission v.
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 549
U.S. 1177, 127 S.Ct. 1145, 166
L.Ed.2d 909) (2007) ---=--==--- 907, 908
Federal Maritime Commission v.
South Carolina State Ports
Authority, 535 U.S. 743, 122 S.Ct.
1864, 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002) --- 600
Federal Radio Comm. v. Nelson Bros.
Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S.
266, 53 S.Ct. 627, 77 L.Ed. 1166
(1988) ---------=--2+-=-------------2-5=- 523
Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S.
490, 101 S.Ct. 737, 66 L.Ed.2d 686
(1980) b--creatyond
siSb--0 ee 1428
Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 71
S.Ct. 308, 95 L.Ed. 295 (1951) -- 760
Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726,
83 S.Ct. 1028, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1968)
1157, 1167, 1204, 1249, 1250, 1456
First National Bank of Boston v.
Bellotti*, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct.
1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978) --- 817,
904, 907, 910
Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U.S. 147, 68
S.Ct. 389, 92 L.Ed. 604 (1948) -- 947
Fisher v. University of Texas, 570
US eel ooto Cia2Z ie SG
L.Ed.2d 474 (2018) ------- 950, 962,
1017, 1040
Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 47
S.Ct. 655, 71 L.Ed. 1108 (1927) 688,
691
Fitzgerald v. Porter Memorial
Hospital, 523 F.2d 716 (7th
Cir.1975) ---------------+---- 1499, 1568
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct.
1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) ------ at,
1359
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603, 9 How.
6038, 13 L.Ed. 276 (1850) --------- 487
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87,3 .
L.Ed. 162 (1810) ----- 193, 356, 520,
544, 1198, 1214, 1218, 1230, 1252,
1416
XXXll TABLE OF CASES
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary
Education Expense Board v.
College Savings Bank, 527 U.S.
627, 119 S.Ct. 2199, 144 L.Ed.2d
575 (1999) ---------------------- 353, 600
Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291, 98
S.Ct. 1067, 55 L.Ed.2d 287 (1978)
Follett v. McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S.
578, 64 S.Ct. 717, 88 L.Ed. 938
(1944) -------------+------------------- 1330
Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990, 123
S.Ct. 470, 154 L.Ed.2d 359 (2002)
wan nn nnn nnn nn enn ee een ee een eee nee HLS
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 112
S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992)
see tie ae cm ee Se 1562
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67,
73 S.Ct. 526, 97 L.Ed. 828 (1953)
Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 35
S.Ct. 383, 59 L.Ed. 5738 (1915) --- 734
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105
S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (19885) - 2
Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112
S.Ct. 14380, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992)
wane nnn nnn nen HOD
Freytag v. C.LR., 501 U.S. 868, 111
S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991)
Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S.
204, 39 S.Ct. 249, 63 L.Ed. 561
(11919) -22=5=22- 22222-22232 28 (PAL IOS
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S.
677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583
(1973) ----347, 794, 874, 1047, 1049,
1054, 1059, 1066, 1108
Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 95
S.Ct. 1792, 44 L. Ed.2d 363 (1975)
Se eee to EE Sid Rell pone Pein ay 651
FTC v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 40 S.Ct.
572, 64 L.Ed. 993 (1920)----------- Dae
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448,
100 S.Ct. 2758, 65 L.Ed.2d 902
(1980) ------ 335, 702, 988, 988, 1032,
1049
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92
S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972)
{tis Becca eS spre TS 65
Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735,
93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298
(19738) --------------------------------+-- 815
Garcia v. San Antonio
Metropolitan Transit
Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct.
1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) ----28
548, 548, 592, 608, 623, 649, 689,
1457
Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64,
85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964)
Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903, 77
S.Ct. 145, 1 L.Ed.2d 114 (1956) -977
General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503
WS ask 2 SiCtll OSseaiA
L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) ---------------- 1223
Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S.
526, 93 S.Ct. 1702, 36 L.Ed.2d 472
(1978) ---------------------------------- 852
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S.
323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789
(1974)--------------- TA2 TAZ 6Sieioll
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 6
L.Ed. 23 (1824)- 545, 546, 549, 581,
588, 599, 628, 647, 654
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.,
336 U.S. 490, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed.
834 (1949) ----------------------- 705, 781
Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 93
S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973)
i ae 1417
Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565,
16 S.Ct. 904, 40 L.Ed. 1075 (1896)
«ok te £2 aS Re Speen 972
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335,
83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963)
ee PAT
Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475, 23 S.Ct.
639, 47 L.Ed. 909 (1908) ----812, 815
Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S.
437, 91 S.Ct. 828, 28 L.Ed.2d 168
(1971)--------- 1288, 13816, 1330, 1410
Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 93
S.Ct. 2440, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1978)
Gilmore v. Montgomery, 417 U.S.
556, 94 S.Ct. 2416, 41 L.Ed.2d 304
(1974)----------------------------------- 871
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629,
88 S.Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195
(1968) ---------------------------------- 1483
Ginzburg v. Goldwater, 396 U.S.
1049, 90 S.Ct. 701, 24 L.Ed.2d 695
(1970)----------------------------------- pet
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45
S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925) 122,
127, 688, 691, 693, 705, 715, 721,
729, 769, 866
Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 82
S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962) 467
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90
S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970)
sornenes=- 153, 1158, 1160, 1161, 1205
Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S.
590, 82 S.Ct. 987, 8 L.Ed.2d 130
(1962)------------------------- 1262,4:270
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U. 8.
503, 106 S.Ct. 1810, 89 L.Ed.2d 478
(1986) wont n een n nen ene n ene eee 1330
Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996,
100 S.Ct. 533, 62 L.Ed.2d 428
(1979)-------------------------+-----22+- 428
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339,
818.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960)
oo enter e teen ence eee 825, 835, 839, 984

Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 48
sc 91, 72 L.Ed. 172 (1927)---- 943,
Gonzales v. Carhart*, 550 U.S.
124, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 167 L.Ed.2d
480 (2007) -------------------- 551, 1481
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita
Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546
U.S:418, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1638
doBids2d) 1017 (2006),---.--------- 1352
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243,
126 S.Ct. 904, 163 L.Ed.2d 748
(2006) ------------+--+-------2-2------- 1554
Gonzales v. Raich*, 545 U.S. 1, 125
S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005)
Seiishechieatenistaaasiantennniseeneiees 551, 653
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92
S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972)
Seicaieeiaaaananeniaaee 701, 735, 763
Goodridge v. Department of
Public Health, 440 Mass. 309,
798 N.E.2d 941 (Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts, 2003)
wenecnectccense- 1052, 1117, 1417, 1520
Gore v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1243
(Fla.2000)---------------------------- 1619
Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 6038, 47 S.Ct.
675, 71 L.Ed. 1228 (1927)------ 1262,
73
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365,
91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534
(1971),----------------- 1045; dal Vale 176
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123
S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257 (2008)
oo ner eeeee--------------- 1006, 1017, 1020
Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe,
306 U.S. 466, 59 S.Ct. 595, 83 L.Ed.
927 (1989) ----------------------------- 396
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83
S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) 207,
814, 827, 1621
Green v. Connally, 330 F.Supp. 1150
(D.D.C.1971) ----------------------- 1410
Green v. Mansour, 74 U.S. 64, 106
S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985)--69
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96
S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)
pase henna nena sew teen eeeehannnnnnne== 65, 766
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452,
111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410
(1991) ------- 604, 617, 627, 853, 1044
Griffin v. County School Board of
Prince Edward County, 377 U.S.
218, 84S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256
(1964) -------------------- 933, 984, 1159
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76
S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956)
--- 207, 828, 1044, 1047, 1085, 1451
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.
479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510
(1965)-- 29, 105, 128, 134, 136, 137,
151, 156, 178, 382, 383, 713, 868,
871, 1047, 1168, 1189, 1229, 1242,
1415, 1416, 1421, 1426, 1427, 1431,
1432, 1435, 1441, 1455, 1488, 1488,
1490, 1503, 15238, 1557, 1562
TABLE
OF CASES XXXili
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297
U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660
(19386) -------- 124, 688, 691, 866, 984
Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S.
555, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d
BilG) (G84) pena oon a oe cee aoe tae 892
Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, 55
S.Ct. 622, 79 L.Ed. 1292 (1935)- 812
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306,
123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304
(2003) -------- 80, 950, 962, 999, 1020
Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433, 942
Pedi Oi) ae -ne eer een as1508
Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347,
35 S.Ct. 926, 59 L.Ed. 1340 (1915)
Saale 815, 948, 984
H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond,
336 U.S. 525, 69 S.Ct. 657, 93 L.Ed.
SBO5i (1949) ea eae see 549
Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S.
394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348
(1915) --=------=-----=---------22=----- 1275
Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct.
954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1989) ------ 805,
13804
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 101 S.Ct.
2766, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) ---- 701,
1147
Hairston v. Danville & Western R.
Co., 208-U.S. 598, 28 S.Ct. 331, 52
Lids 637iG'908))-====----2--- = 1254
Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485, 5 Otto
A85, 24 L.Ed. 547 (1877) ---------- 942
Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950
(2008) ------------------------ 1116, 1518
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld*, 548 U.S.
557, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 165 L.Ed.2d
728 (2006) ------ 71, 495, 1584, 1589,
1606, 1616
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld*, 316 F.3d 450
(4th Cir.2003)------- 468, 1584, 1615
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507,
124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578
(2004) ---- 428, 469, 494, 1584, 1616
Hamilton v. Regents of the
University of California, 293 U.S.
245, 55 S.Ct. 197, 79 L.Ed. 3438
(1984) ------------------ 127, 1298, 1302
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251,
388 S.Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed. 1101 (1918)
nop SERB Se 546, 589, 632, 648, 12438
Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276
U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed.
624 (1928) ---------------------------- 518
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S.
88, 96 S.Ct. 1895, 48 L.Ed.2d 495
(1976) ---- 934, 973, 993, 1045, 1451
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10
S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890) --- 69,
353, 600
Harper v. Virginia State Board of
Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct.
1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966) --- 178,
176, 206, 813, 816, 835, 1058,
1079, 1087, 1091, 1140, 1145,
A e7Oe 1235. 1620
XXXIV TABLE OF CASES
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 100
S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980)
---- 331, 808, 900, 1045, 1088, 1089,
1174, 1442, 1444, 1574
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff,
467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81
L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) ------- 1204, 1254
Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 408, 2 Dall.
409, 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792) ---- 106, 292,
304
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 92
S.Ct. 2338, 33 L.Ed.2d 266 (1972)
ae
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United
States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S.Ct. 348,
13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964)- 65, 546, 593,
630, 874, 933
Hebe v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297, 39 S.Ct.
125, 63 L.Ed. 255 (1919)--------- 1425
Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 47
S.Ct. 103, 71 L.Ed. 270 (1926) ---125
Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728,
104 S.Ct. 1887, 79 L.Ed.2d 646
(1984) -------------------------- 873, 1049
Heffron v. International Society for
Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 49
U.S. 1109, 101 S.Ct. 917, 66 L.Ed.2d
838 (1981) ----------------------------- 876
Hein v. Freedom from Religion
Foundation, 551 U.S. 587, 127
S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424--- 1287
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 113 S.Ct.
2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1998) -- 225,
1128
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 57
Sits, SIO (AIS BI7))) aee Reese eae 666
Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405,
58 S.Ct. 969, 82 L.Ed. 1427 (1938)
oo no none nn en eee n eee n ee ee ee eee ee eee 547, 617
Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809
(ina! (Cie QB ee cece heceseceecos 383
Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S.
816, 70 S.Ct. 8438, 94 L.Ed. 1302
(1950) woe e nee c nena e een en eee n ene n eee e eee 947
Hepburnv. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603, 0.
L.Ed. 518 (1869) ------------------- 1223
Hernandez v. Texas*, 347 U.S. 475,
74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954)
wane ne nee e eee e eee e eee eee eee 938, 978
Herndonv. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 57
S.Ct. 732, 81 L.Ed. 1066 (1937) 124,
688, 691, 728, 945
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320
WiSs81563'S:Ce2 1375; 87 L.Ed.
1774 (1943) 89, 934, 947, 972, 981,
994, 1169, 1589, 1607
Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197,
69 S.Ct. 197, 93 L. Ed. 1902 (1948)
wana nance anne ene een n enn eee e een ee eee 1606
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals
Comm’n, 480 U.S. 136, 107 S.Ct.
1046, 94 L.Ed.2d 190 (1987)---- 1328
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining &
Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264, 101 S.Ct.
2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) 593, 1270
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417,
110 S.Ct..2926, 111 L.Ed.2d 344
(1990) etcaes ebenes 12 eee 1549
Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 18
S.Ct. 383, 42 L.Ed. 780 (1898)
ce ener eS se 1234, 1245
Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 114
S.Ct. 2581, 129 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994)
Sane pee SSeS yee ceeas RRO RESIS -=S 1016
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ___,
133 S.Ct. 2652 (2018) -- 1125, 1135,
1417, 1543
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 512 U.S.
874, 114 S.Ct. 2581, 129 L.Ed.2d
687 (1994) -sesseeenosae ee 518
Holmes v. Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879, 76
S.Ct. 141, 100 L.Ed. 776 (1955) -977
Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S.
936, 88 S.Ct. 1835, 20 L.Ed.2d 856
(1968) ---------------------------------- 793
Home Building & Loan Ass’n v.
Blaisdell (The Minnesota
Moratorium Case), 290 U.S. 398,
54 8.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413 (1934)
--30, 173, 176, 192, 210, 415, 1228,
1242, 1586, 1588
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th
Cir.1996) ------------------------------ 999
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical
Lutheran Church and School v.
E-E.O:€.. 56510 Se Le 2isae.
694, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2012)-1290,
1356
Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 107
S.Ct. 2502, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987)
wane n ence nen n ene n een en een n nee eee e eens 751
Hudson v. Palmer. 468 U.S. 517, 104
S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984)
Sehiceieaeleeniaaeiaeianaeienaeianaraaaaibiaeeemaaiae 10438
Humphrey’s Executor v. United
States, 295 U.S. 602, 55 S.Ct. 869,
79 L.Ed. 1611 (1935) -=---+--- 430, 528
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay,
Lesbian and Bisexual Group of
Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 115:S:Ct.
2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995)-- -1092
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 4
S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 932 (1884)-- 122,
128, 128, 205, 445
Hustler Magazine, Ine. v.
Falwell*, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct.
876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988) ----- 700,
751, 771, 798
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171, 3
Dall. 171, 1 L.Ed. 556 (1796)-- 106,
1201
Immigration and Naturalization
Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,
103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317
(1988) --70, 267, 430, 456, 495, 514,
520, 528, 540

In re Converse, 137 U.S. 624, 11 S.Ct.
191, 34 L.Ed. 796 (1891) -------- 1231
In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 93 S.Ct.
2851, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973) --- 1045
In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394, 529 A.2d
434 (N.J.1987)---------------------- 1545
In re Karen Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355
A. 2d:647 (N.J.1976) ---2:+---2---- 1289
In re Kemmler, 1386 U.S. 436, 10 S.Ct.
930, 34 L.Ed. 519 (1890) -- 122, 128,
1231
In re Marriage of Sharyne B. and
Stephen, 124 Cal.App.3d 524, 177
Cal.Rptr. 429 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.1981)
BE I A Aad BE 154
In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 658,
Bro sul Bidh oon de 9O)=--a2-ee-
eee a= ee 452
In re Primus, 486 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct.
1893, 56 L.Ed.2d 417 (1978) ----- 873
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct.
1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) 2, 1416
In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 66 S.Ct.
340, 90 L.Ed. 499 (1946) -------- 1606
Income Tax Cases, 158 U.S. 601, 15
SCI, WG (CUSISIS))) ee ease 71
Indian Motocycle Co. v. United
States, 283 U.S. 570, 51 S.Ct. 601,
715 LiEd. 1277 (1931)--------------- 5A7
Indian Towing Co. v. United States,
350 U.S. 61; 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed.
ASN GO yc) aes ee eee eee 594
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97
S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977)
wana eee nen e nnn nnn eee nen eee 154.1573
INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 101 S.Ct.
1027, 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981) ----- 524
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511
U.S. 127;.114'S.Ct. 1419, 128
L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) -- 954, 1066, 1075
J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United
States, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348,
72 L.Ed. 624 (1928) ---------------- 520
Jackson v. Alabama, 348 U.S. 888, 75
S.Ct. 210, 99 L.Ed. 698 (1954) ---979
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99
S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
i eee 2, 1416
Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U.S.
264, 40 S.Ct. 141, 64 L.Ed. 260
QG20) 5st 4-sek 6 os hero tn 1425
Jacob Siegel Co. v. FTC, 327 U.S. 608,
66 S.Ct. 758, 90 L.Ed. 888 (1946)
owen nnn nnn nnn nnn ene TALS
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 84
S.Ct. 1676, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964)
oan nnn nnn n nnn nee 1496
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197
U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643
(1905)-- 119, 203, 1234, 1428, 1429,
1544
Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264
U.S. 504, 44 S.Ct. 412, 68 L.Ed. 813
(1924) --------------------------------- 1251
Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535,
92 S.Ct. 1724, 32 L.Ed.2d 285 |
(1972) ------------------------2-------- 1450
TABLE OF CASES XXXV
Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80
SWE Sdi332(Q002)i- 24 eee. 1508
Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 94
S.Ct. 2750, 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974)
wane nen e nee nee en ene nnn e nee eee eee e eee 767
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91
S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971)
none renee nnn ene n eee eee eee eee e ee 935
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hosp. v.
Heston, 58 N.J. 576, 279 A.2d 670
(NADA F Dict tie 1289
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997,
114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775
(1994) --------=------------------------- 849
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763,
70 S.Ct. 936, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950)--
490, 497, 1606
Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94
S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974)
wan een n een ene ene e eee 1410
Joint Anti—Fascist Refugee
Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S.
128, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817
(1951) --=-=-------2--2--5--b-4222-2222-- 866
Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 62
S.Ct. 1231, 86 L.Ed. 1691 (1942)
Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct.
3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979) ----1331
Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools,
487 U.S. 450, 108 S.Ct. 2481, 101
L.Hd.2d 399 (1988) =--+----==------ 1174
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725,
108 S.Ct. 2653, 77 L.Ed.2d 133
(1988) --------------------- 815, 835, 845
Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 223 (2nd
Gipi0e5) es ans. Same s. 162
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347,
88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)
wa nen nnn en nn nen nnn nn nena nen nnnnne 1435, 1492
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S.
294, 85 S.Ct. 377, 13 L.Ed.2d 290
(1964) -------------------------- 933, 1145
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S.
641, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 16 L.Ed.2d 828
(1966) ------ 274, 324, 331, 332, 336,
431, 648, 812, 816, 860, 1056, 1343,
1346, 1848, 1351
Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral
of Russian Orthodox Church in
North America, 344 U.S. 94, 73
S.Ct. 148, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952)
wan nnn enna nnn n nnn nnne==-- 1329, 13860, 1367
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469,
125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439
(2005) ------------------------ 1204, 1253
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S.Ct.
1118, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958) ---- 130,
1142
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385
U.S. 589, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d
629 (1967) ----------------------- 805; 807
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v.
DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 107
S.Ct. 1232, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987)
wan rn nnn en nn nn nnn ne nnn nnn n ee WAAOS IANS
XXXVI1 TABLE OF CASES
Kimel vy. Florida Board of Regents,
528 U.S. 62, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145
L.Ed.2d 522 (2000) ----------- 275, 601
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U.S. 450,
87 S.Ct. 618, 17 L.Ed.2d 511 (1967)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753,
92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683
(1972) -----------------------------2----- 524
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S.
2138, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1
(1967) Se. a 127
Korematsu v. United States, 323
US. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed.
194 (1944) ----- 87, 92, 207, 476, 947,
966, 972, 981, 991, 998, 1013, 1048,
1143, 1235, 1588, 1589, 1606
Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 69
S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513 (1949) -- 693,
128
Kramer v. Union Free School
District, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct.
1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 588 (1969)--- 1048,
1176
Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, 232
F.Supp.2d 205 (S.D.N.Y.2002)
---796
Ku Klux Klan v. Martin Luther King
Jr. Worshippers, 735 F.Supp. 745
(M.D.Tenn.1990)--------------------- 796
Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 94
S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973)
Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light
Commas orUesS, 889. 98iS: Cr 123555
L.Ed.2d 364 (1978) ----------------- 594
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct.
2318, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972)------ 702
Lalli v. Lalli, 489 U.S. 259, 99 S.Ct.
518, 58 L.Ed.2d 508 (1978) ----- eS
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches
Union Free School District, 508
UiSses4ai3 SoCt 214194
L.Ed.2d 352 (1998) --------- 396, 1294
Landmark Communications v.
Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 98 S.Ct.
1535, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) --------- 702
Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. 71,
NG) Oe OL GUSTS) c= eee acess 603
Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 59 S.Ct.
872, 83 L.Ed. 1281 (1939)--827, 984
Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451,
59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939)
Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102
S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982)
Lassiter v. Northampton Election
Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3
L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959) -- 206, 324, 815
Late Corporation of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10
S.Ct. 792, 34 L.Ed. 478 (1890) - 1297
Lauf v. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323,
58 S.Ct. 578, 82 L.Ed. 872 (1938) i
SUE a RIE CE Boe Se Se 7
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558,
123 S.Ct-2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508
(2008) ------- 108, 137, 147, 346, 893,
1043, 1102, 1122, 1417, 1501, 1502,
1571
Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 1338, 14
S.Ct. 499, 38 L.Ed. 385 (1894)--1423
League of United Latin American
Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F.Supp. 755
(C.D.Cal.1995) ---------------------- 1174
Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 88
S.Ct. 994, 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 (1968)
pene ne pene eae ae em ea en 949, 1013, 1048
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 112
S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992)
== D1 LOSetZ6 b= Giese Soe
1294, 1339, 1381, 13892, 1401
Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S.
298, 94 S.Ct. 2714, 41 L.Ed.2d 770
(1974s +t oe Se vo aes 744
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 103
S.Ct. 2985, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1988)
HERESY TS 2c ee Ee see 149
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91
S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971)
wanna nee nae nn nnn nneenn eee 157, 13827; 1399
Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88
S.Ct. 1509, 20 L.Ed.2d 436 (1968)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 3438, 116
S.Ct. 2174, 185 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996)
Se eee NSS TET
Lewis v. New Orleans, 408 U.S. 918,
92 S.Ct. 2499, 33 L.Ed.2d 321
(1972)--------------------------------4-- 763
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55,
100 S.Ct. 915, 63 L.Ed.2d 198
(1980)----------------------------------- 220
License Cases (Thurlow v.
Commonwealth of Mass.), 46 U.S.
504, 5 How. 504, 12 L.Ed. 256
(S47) -seeeae
eee eeeeeeee 32. NO Seele AS
Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S.
742, 68 S.Ct. 1294, 92 L.Ed. 1694
(1948)----------------------------+------ 791
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 92
S.Ct. 862, 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972)
wo eeeeeee nnn ne ee 1047, 1082, 1161, 1574
Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas
Co., 220 U.S, 61; 31° S:Ciy 337955
L.Ed. 369 (1911)----- 943, 965, 1143,
LLS7
Little v. Barreme (The Flying
Fish), 6 U.S. 170, 2 L.Ed. 243
(1804) -------------- 304, 428, 435, 449
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45,
25 S.Ct. 589, 49 L.Ed. 937 (1905)
---- 43, 122, 130, 137, 190, 207, 246,
395, 546, 632, 836, 957, 999, 1027,
1182, 1184, 1202, 1230, 1236, 1249,

1251, 1252, 1279, 1281, 1423, 1426,
1433, 1459, 1480, 1487, 1493
Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 124
S.Ct. 1807, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004)
won en nance en ee nee ee eee 1287, 1289, 1353
Loewe v. Lawlor (The Danbury
Hatters' Case), 208 U.S. 274, 28
S.Ct. 301, 52 L.Ed. 488 (1908) - 1201
Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U.S.
9, 1175S.Ct. 340, 186 L.Ed.2d 273
(1999) -------------------------------+-+- 852
Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United
Reporting Publishing Corp. , 528
USS. 32, 120 S.Ct. 483, 145 L.Ed.2d
541 (1999) --------------+--42---:-----. 920
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v.
Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 67 S.Ct.
3499s Mid) (422:(1947) 2-22-+=-- 128
Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S.
145, 85 S.Ct. 817, 13 L.Ed.2d 709
(1965) --------------------------- 816, 1071
Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 48 S.Ct. 423,
12 1a Bd-67 70/1928) =---=+=-<2---= IA
Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Rr.
v. Mississippi, 133 U.S. 587, 10
S.Ct. 348, 33 L.Ed. 784 (1890) --- 942
Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58
S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938)-- 688,
691, 733
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87
S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967)
152, 886, 974, 977, 978, 1001, 1047,
1067, 1108, 1115, 1121, 1140, 1162,
11638, 1417, 1426, 1436, 1455, 1458,
1482, 1488, 1490, 1516, 1524, 1557,
1562
Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 94
S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974)
onan nnn nn nn nnn nn nn nnn nnn ene ene 1045
Lucas v. Forty—Fourth General
Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S.
7138, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632
(1964) --------------------------------- 1179
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 505 U.S. 1008, 112 S.Ct.
2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) ----43,
1205, 1268, 1269
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
WiS4555, 2 8 Ci 21305 119
L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)----------- 431, 437
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 7 How. 1,
12 L.Ed. 581 (1849) ----273, 823, 826
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104
S.Ct. 1855, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984)
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp.,
405 U.S. 538, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31
L.Ed.2d 424 (1972)---------------- 1204
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery,
485 U.S. 4389, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99
L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) --------------- 1330
MacCallum v. Seymour’s Adm’r, 165
Vt. 452, 686 A.2d 935 Sercesae am
TABLE OF CASES XXXVIi
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 60
S.Ct. 406, 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940) 127,
1151
Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341, 72
S.Ct. 699, 96 L.Ed. 988 (1952) - 490
Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 93
S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973) 815
Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 97 S.Ct.
2376, 53 L.Ed.2d 484 (1977) ---- 804,
1445
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct.
1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) ---- 127,
207
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct.
1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) ---- 127,
135, 139
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2
L.Ed. 60 (1808)--- 31, 106, 140, 191,
DANS 2924As 25826302 oe 2d
293, 296, 320, 329; 333) 337, 374,
498, 515, 598, 641, 655, 1119, 1344,
1475, 1562
Marsh vy. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783,
103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019
(1988) ----------- 162, 527, 13899, 1405
Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679, 93
S.Ct. 1211, 35 L.Ed.2d 627 (1973)
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee*, 14
U.S. 304, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816) ----- 70,
352, 355, 3638, 374, 544, 555, 591,
603
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 68
S.Ct. 862, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (19438)- 138
Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 88
S.Ct. 2017, 20 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1968)
arene nnen nen en nen nnn nennanane 595, 605, 647
Massachusetts Board of Retirement
v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct.
2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976) --- 1044,
1163, 1176
Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886,
91 S.Ct. 128, 27 L.Ed.2d 140 (1970)
Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S.
447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078
(1928) -------------------------- 824, 1242
Massachusetts v. United States, 435
U.S. 444, 98 S.Ct. 1153, 55 L.Ed.2d
403 (1978) --------------------------+-- 547
Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244
F. 535 (S.D.N.Y.1917) ------------- 705
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 96
S.Ct. 1883, 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976)
wane nana enna enn nn enn e ee nn en nn ene 1045, 1169
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319,
96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 96
S.Ct. 2755, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976)
wanna n nnn n nen nn enn en ee nn ee 886, 1052, 1176
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20°
S.Ct. 448, 44 L.Ed. 597 (1900) -- 122
May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73
S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1958) 1483
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
but could not get them to destroy their own means of
communication. Had this been done the French army was lost. The
delay, however, caused by the necessity of forcing and repairing the
bridges, cost the French the loss of many men and horses,[1] and of
most of the spoil they were carrying off from Oporto. Unfortunately
the letters in which these operations were described are wanting. But
for the rest of the long campaign up to the battle of Salamanca, with
the exception of Talavera, when he was with Beresford in Portugal,
and of Albuera, and Bussaco, from which he was absent through
illness, his letters are fairly consecutive comments of an actor in the
events which occurred during that period of heroic struggle.
On 30th May 1811 he was promoted by Brevet to the rank of Major
in the English Army, and to that of Lieutenant-Colonel in the
Portuguese Army. At the last siege of Badajos, he was the senior
Staff Officer at the summons of Fort Christobal, and had the honour
of taking prisoners the Generals Philippon and Weyland, who
surrendered their swords to him.
In the battle of Salamanca, 1812, he was with his chief, Marshal
Beresford, when the latter was severely wounded, and, as narrated
in the letters, carried him into the town, nursed him through his
illness, and went with him to Lisbon.
In 1813 Major Warre was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-
Colonel in the English Army, and resigned his commission in the
Portuguese Army. He received from the King of Portugal medals for
his conduct at Vimeiro, at the siege and assault of Ciudad Rodrigo,
and for the two sieges of Badajos, also a medal for the four
campaigns. He was also made a Knight of the Order of the Tower
and Sword, and of the Order of St Bento d’Avis.
In 1813 he was sent to the Cape of Good Hope, where he was
appointed Q.M.G., a post which he held till 1819.
In November 1812 he had married Selina, youngest daughter of
Christopher Maling of West Herrington and Hillton, in the county of
Durham. By her he had a family of three sons and two daughters.
His youngest son, Henry, born 1819 at the Cape, was afterwards
General Sir Henry Warre, K.C.B. His wife died 3rd February 1821.
 In November 1820 he returned to England, and in 1821, by reason
of ill-health, went on half-pay.
In May 1823 he was appointed A.Q.M.G. in Ireland, and in 1826
was transferred to a similar appointment in England. In 1826-1827
he served on the Staff of the Army sent to Lisbon under the
command of Sir William Clinton, G.C.B.
On 22nd July 1830 he became a full Colonel. He served again on
the Staff in Ireland till 1836, when he was appointed to the command
at Chatham. He held this appointment till his promotion to the rank of
Major-General 23rd November 1841. It was during his command that
the Review took place which is immortalised by Dickens in Pickwick.
He was made C.B., and was Knighted in 1839. In 1842 he was
placed in command of the North-Western District. Subsequently he
was transferred to the Northern District, with his Headquarters at
York. Reference is made to him in the letters of Queen Victoria (vol.
i., p. 150).
He gave up the command at York in the year 1851, and, liking the
place and neighbourhood, remained there in a residence which he
rented at Bishopthorpe. His health broke down in 1852, and in the
following year he died, and was buried in the churchyard at
Bishopthorpe. The church has since been pulled down, and the
churchyard, which is adjacent to the gardens of the Archiepiscopal
Palace, closed. His tomb is on the south side of the old graveyard,
and bears the following inscription:—
SACRED TO THE MEMORY
OF
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL SIR WILLIAM WARRE
C.B., K.T.S., K.C., St Bento D’Avis
Colonel of the 94th Regiment
Died at York, 26th July 1853, aged 69 Years.

[1] See Oman, vol. ii., pp. 355-9.

LETTERS FROM THE
PENINSULA
 1808
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In June 1808 the British Government determined to send
assistance to the Spaniards, who had risen in revolt against the
French domination in the Peninsula.
Spain, which had been an enemy, was now regarded as a friend.
In the previous year, an expedition under General Whitelock had
been despatched to invade the Spanish Colonies in America, with
disastrous results. In 1808 a force of about 9000 men was already
assembled in Ireland, with a view to renewing this attempt under a
more competent General. But in the altered circumstances the
destination of these troops was changed, and they were placed
under the command of Lieut.-General Sir Arthur Wellesley, with
orders to proceed to Portugal and to co-operate with the Spaniards
and Portuguese in attacking the French.
Beside the troops ready to embark in Ireland there were two
Brigades—Anstruther’s and Acland’s, quartered at Harwich and
Ramsgate respectively—available for immediate service abroad.
These were added to Wellesley’s command. And in addition to these
there were at this time about 5000 men, under General Spencer,
observing Cadiz, who could join the expedition on Portuguese soil.
Lastly, there was a force of about 10,000 men under Sir John Moore,
who had been sent to the Baltic to co-operate with the Swedes, a
task which proved impracticable. These were on their way home,
and were ordered to Portugal, though some time elapsed before they
could join their comrades in the Peninsula.
Major-General Ferguson, with his Aides-de-Camp, Capt. Warre
and Capt. Mellish, embarked at Portsmouth in H.M.S. Resistance—
Capt. Adam—in May; but their destination at that time was quite
uncertain, though General Ferguson, nominally at least, belonged to
the force under General Spencer’s command. After some further
delay, owing to contrary winds, the Resistance arrived at Cork,
where Sir Arthur Wellesley on 7th June assumed the command of
the troops assembled. The news of the Spanish insurrection had
already reached England, and although quite uncertain as yet as to
their future movements, everyone seems to have taken it for granted
that they were to sail at once. As it turned out, they had many weeks
to wait before the actual start took place.
The six letters written in May and June, though not belonging
properly to the letters from the Peninsula, have been included in the
series, as giving an account not altogether uninteresting of the kind
of life led while waiting for orders to sail, the needs and necessities
recorded, and the ideas generally entertained by the writer as set
forth in his correspondence. The difficulties respecting the soldier
servant, whom he was so anxious to take with him, have an almost
tragic interest in view of the ultimate fate of the man, which is
afterwards described in the letters.
Not without interest also are the sidelights occasionally thrown
upon the jealousy with which Colonels of Regiments regarded the
taking of officers from service with the Regiment for Staff
employment, and the indications of the necessity of influence in high
quarters to obtain any appointment of the kind. But more than all is
the evidence of the enthusiasm which pervaded all ranks—
enthusiasm for a glorious cause, which was no less than the
liberation of Europe from the domination of the tyrant, who had
trampled right and justice under foot, and was without gainsaying
England’s bitterest and deadliest foe.

LETTERS
Portsmouth, May 22, 1808.
Here we are, my dearest Father, after a very hasty journey and
pleasant, as constant rain and a complete overturn about ½ a mile
short of Kingston, from which Capt. Mellish and myself escaped
quite safe, except a few trifling bruises and a sprained thumb I got,
which renders my writing somewhat difficult—with these exceptions
it was as pleasant as could be to me, leaving all those dearest to me
in the world.
We have just got all our baggage, and go on board ourselves this
evening. Capt. Adam appears to be a very fine gentlemanly young
man, and much inclined to show us every civility.
We shall sail as soon as the wind is fair, and are much hurried.
Should my things arrive this evening they will be in time, otherwise I
fear not. Nothing can be kinder than the General. I think myself every
moment more fortunate in going with him. Pray get some advice
about Rankin. I shall send him on shore at Cork, if I can, and have
no answer from Seymour.[2] If I am not able to send him on shore,
the advice I want you to get is, how to get him leave to go, as if he
were not gone but to Cork. Pray write. It may find me on board the
Resistance, Cork. I will write every opportunity. May God bless and
preserve you all and give you every happiness, is the constant
prayer of your affectionate son,
Wm. Warre.

[2] Lt.-Col. 23rd Dragoons.

H.M.S. “Resistance,” St Helens, May 24th, 1808.

Many thanks, my dear Father, for your letter of yesterday, and the
books and wine, about which I have just written to Messrs Smith and
Atkins, directing them, if we are sailed, to send it to care of Markland
at Gibraltar. Here we are with the wind as foul as it can blow, and too
hard to put to sea. We shall sail the first opportunity, and are not a
little anxious to get off. Nothing can exceed the General’s and Capt.
Adam’s kindness. We are as comfortable as on shore, and as happy
as possible.
 We have not the least idea of our destination. Reports I never
believe. If the General does not know, it is not likely any newspaper
can. I received my books and wine safe, for which accept my thanks.
The books, at all events, I could not read if I had them not. They are
therefore as well with me, and God knows how long we may be on
board or away.
I am glad you intend to call on the Duke. It is as well; and pray do
not forget to assure Ld. Mostyn of my gratitude and sense of his
kindness towards me. I have written, or rather I wrote the day I left
town to Seymour, but, should I not get his answer at Cork, must send
Rankin on shore; and to go without a servant is very inconvenient
indeed. Therefore I think, if you could hire me a steady, honest
servant, it would be worth while his coming to Cork to me; or the
General thinks it would be better to ask General Calvert, by
“empenho”[3] to send me an order to Cork for him to accompany me
at all events.
Adieu; we are ordered off by signal. May God preserve and bless
you all, is the constant prayer of your affectionate son,
Wm. Warre.

[3] By desire.

Cove, June 8, 1808.

My Dearest Father,
Till yesterday, on Sir A. Wellesley’s arrival at Cork to take the
command, our sailing was so uncertain, that I did not write to you, for
other news, except that we are all well, from hence I had none to tell.
We now expect to sail the day after to-morrow, Sunday, if the wind is
fair. The glorious accounts from Spain have hurried us off, and I
believe there is now no doubt that that is our destination, but what
part we know not. The Rendezvous is Tangier bay, in case of parting
company, which looks like Cadiz (this entre nous).
 We are exceedingly anxious to get away, after six weeks’ delay.
The Army are in the highest spirits; indeed the cause we are
engaged in is the noblest a soldier could wish, and to support the
liberties and independence of a country so lately our enemy. To
forget all animosity and cordially join against the common enemy of
Europe, the would-be Tyrant of the world, is worthy of the British
name; and a soldier’s heart must be cold indeed that would not
warm with enthusiasm in such a cause. I am not one of the most
sanguine; you know my opinion of armed mobs, though in this, from
the accounts we have received, there is an appearance of system
and order that promises well. May God assist the Right. It may be
the crisis of the Tyrant’s power. If he fails now, it may open the eyes
of Europe.
I will write by every opportunity and let you know how we are going
on, and the news, and a line when we sail. The General’s best
thanks for your present of maps. They are most acceptable to him.
He is gone with Adam and Mellish to Cork to dine with the Mayor, or
dine in publick in honour of Sir Arthur. I was asked, but having a
good deal to do, and not fancying a crowd, have sent an excuse. We
have been very gay here ever since we arrived, but long to be off.
How unfortunate we were not to be with Spencer at landing at
Cadiz. There will be yet something I hope to be done. Boney will not
easily give up his point, and a more beautiful army never embarked,
for its size, from any place. We have been joined by 45th, 4 troops
20 Lt. Dns., and 2 companies Artillery, besides a very large Staff,
and are to be by the 36th Regt. The troops are very healthy, in all
about 9650 men.
I have not heard further about remaining in the 23rd. Seymour has
allowed me to take Rankin, if I can get a man to exchange. Stuart is
trying to get me one from the 9th Foot, but they are all so high in
spirits at going on service, I fear of his getting one. I think we shall
certainly sail on Sunday, if possible. Write to me, in case we should
go to Porto, direct Gibraltar, and tell me if I can do anything there;
depend on my punctuality and exertions. Such a thing might happen
as going in there. Our party is much augmented on board
Resistance. Generals Crawfurd and Fane 1 A.-de-C. or 2, 1 Bᵈᵉ
Major, and a civil Secretary. It will not be so pleasant as hitherto.
Patience, it is a million times better than a transport.
From your ever affectionate son,
Wm. Warre.
Pray desire Hawkes Piccadilly to send me a Hat and Feather, the
same shape exactly as the last, by 1st opportunity; my old one is
gone to pieces. Adieu.

Cove, June 17, 1808.

My Dear Father,
I have to thank you for your kind letter on the 11th inst., and for
that you wrote to Genl. Payne, in which you have said everything
that can be said. I am much afraid he is offended with my carrying
my point in spite of him.
It is however of consequence my remaining in the Regiment, as
more Captains are quitting it I hear, and I have therefore this day
written to Greenwood’s with the enclosed paper of exchange signed,
of which letter you have an extract annexed. It may do good, and
cannot do any harm.
Seymour, I think, will do what he can for me; his letters are as
friendly as possible, though he will not allow me to take Rankin,
which is very annoying, particularly now that I have bought a horse,
nor do I know what to do for a servant here. There is no such thing,
and as all the troops are now embarked, and we may be ordered to
sail every hour, I have no time to write for one. I should therefore be
much obliged to you, if you would enquire about some honest, trusty
man, who must understand horses, and send him out to join me at
Gibraltar. Agree about wages, clothes, etc., and send him out to join
me at Gibraltar, or off Cadiz, as soon as a conveyance offers. To be
on service without a trusty servant will be exceedingly unpleasant.
 We know nothing further of our destination or plans. We have
been here amusing ourselves in perfect idleness, though very gayly.
We yesterday dined on board Ld. Thomond’s yacht, and went in the
evening to a play, acted by the Officers of the Resistance, for the
poor of Cove. It was exceedingly crowded, and went off very well. I
have bought a nice little hack, a mare, the only thing of the kind I
could get for the price, 30 guineas Irish, for which I drew yesterday
on you. They ask 50, 60, 70, for nice hacks, and the Genl. and
Mellish have been obliged to pay it. I got mine from an Artillery
Officer, through a friend of mine, and am very lucky. I also further
drew upon you for £20 British to Mr Mayhew, of which Mellish has
half and is to pay me in the money of the country we go to. I hope we
shall now leave this very soon. All the Regts. are embarked, and we
only wait for orders. I will write as soon as they arrive. I rejoice to
hear that dear Tom[4] was safe at Stockholm, and daily expected.
God send him safe, dear fellow. It would have been great happiness
to have seen him before I sailed, but I shall now be satisfied with
hearing of his safe arrival. Give him my kindest love and welcome
home.
Pray assure Lord Rosslyn when you see him of my high sense of
his Lordship’s goodness, and that if I must quit the 23rd, I shall feel
highly gratified by being in his Regiment. Pray get my uncle to get
the Duchess to speak to Gordon about the exchange. As things are
now, it is really a very hard case that I must give up my chance of
advancement because I am anxious to learn experience of my
profession, and it has disgusted me not a little. In the midst of this
idleness, such is the confusion and hurry that we can scarcely settle
to anything. Report says we are going to Spain. I am working hard at
Spanish, as is Mellish, who is a very clever fellow.
Stuart, my old friend, embarked to-day. His Regiment marched in,
in the finest order, and got great credit. He desires to be most kindly
remembered, as does the General. I believe General Hill, who
commanded at Fermoy when I was there, goes with us in the
Resistance. He is a very pleasant, mild man, and much liked. He
commands here till the arrival of the Commander-in-Chief, Sir A.
Wellesley, I believe certainly; but whether he will come here, or we
join him at sea, is not known.
Wm. Warre.
Extract of my Letter to Greenwood & Cox.
“June 17, 1808.
“The objection to my accompanying Major General Ferguson (the
number of Captns. then on the Staff from the Regt.) being now
removed by Captn. F’s exchange, I hope H.R. Highness and Major-
General Payne will be pleased to allow me to remain in the 23rd, to
which, independent of the number of steps I shall lose by the
exchange, I am much attached, and shall only quit from my great
desire of acquiring experience in my profession on actual service, of
which I saw but little prospect in the Regt. at present. Any
emolument I can receive from my Staff situation, I can assure
H.R.H., is not an object, my only wish being to render myself, as far
as lays in my power, useful in the service, however great the loss [I
may] suffer by entering another Regt. as younger Captain from one
in which I am so high up.
“I have the honour to request you will lay this before H.R.H., at the
same time assuring him of my willingness to fulfil the conditions
under which he was pleased to allow me to accompany Major-Genl.
Ferguson, by exchanging into any Regt. of Dragoons H.R.H. may
think proper. I have the honour, etc., etc.”
I have desired them to write to me what answer the Duke gives.

[4] Thomas Warre, second son of James Warre, a merchant in

St Petersburg, escaped from Russia to Sweden after war had
been declared against England.

Cove, June 22, 1808.

My Dearest Father,
 I have this morning received your kind letter of the 16th, and am
very much obliged to you for the Maps, which will be most
acceptable, as I have hunted all over Cork without finding anything of
the kind, and I think there is little doubt of Spain’s being our
destination in the first place. I shall offer them to the General, but I
fear he will not be prevailed on to accept them. He is always ready to
oblige or give anything away himself, but would not take a pen from
anyone, if he thought he deprived him of it. I shall note carefully what
you say respecting ... though on his score of fortune, I think you have
been misinformed. He is not amiable in his manners, but very clever,
and though very good friends, we are not likely ever to be very
intimate or confidential. A sort of outward cordiality must seem to
exist, placed as we are together in situation.
I am most sincerely rejoiced that Douglas is coming to join us. For
him I have really a very warm regard, and should Johnstone
succeed, shall have with me two of my greatest friends. Our General
has nothing to do with the present Expedition. He belongs to
Spencer, and is ordered to proceed by the first safe conveyance (a
man-of-war) but, should one not offer, to remain in the Resistance;
this entre nous. He has applied, but none offers, and I think there is
very little doubt of our all having the same destination. He is naturally
very anxious to join his Brigade at his post off Cadiz, but we should
all quit the Resistance with very great regret. Nothing can be more
pleasant than our situation with so excellent a fellow as Adam.
I was in great hopes of hearing of dear Tom’s safe arrival, and
hope still to have that happiness before we sail. Enclosed I send him
a few lines welcome home. They but faintly express a brother’s
feelings at his escape, and return, after so long an absence, to the
bosom of his family.
All the troops are embarked, and certainly finer, as far as they go,
never were seen. We now only wait for orders and Sir A. Wellesley,
who is expected to-day, and will I hope bring some further orders for
Genl. Ferguson. As to Rankin, I have written to Seymour to allow
him to exchange into the 9th Foot. Stuart has been so good as to
promise to get one of his men to do so, and I trust the General, who,
by the bye, it was that wrote, will have an answer.
 I have no answer to my letter about buying his discharge, which I
fear will not be allowed. It will be abominably unpleasant to embark
with a horse and no servant. As to Payne [nothing] but the steps and
prospects I have in his Regiment would induce me to remain in it,
though Seymour’s letters are highly kind and flattering. Payne
considering dispassionately, has but little right to be angry at my
using all my endeavours to get a very advantageous situation,
although in spite of him; nor can I rate my services so low, as to
suppose they are a matter of indifference to my Regiment,
particularly considering the sacrifices I offered to make on my return
to England. His not answering your letter is want of good breeding.
Seymour’s letter to him, however, perhaps makes him hesitate.
We have been endeavouring to establish a ball here this evening
for the relief of the poor distressed wives of the Soldiers, but it is a
very bad day and I fear we shall have but thin attendance. I have
been much troubled with the toothache, and yesterday had the
unruly member drawn with much difficulty, and to-day my face is very
sore and swelled; but, as I was one of the chief instigators of this
ball, I must go, though not at all in the humour for it. Adieu, my
dearest father. Ever your most affectionate son,
Wm. Warre.
The Genl. thanks you for your kind messages, and desires to be
most kindly remembered.

Cove, June 27, 1808.

My Dearest Mother,
Even had I not this morning received your most kind and
affectionate letter by Douglas with the locket, it was my intention to
have written a few lines, nor have I time for much more, as we dine
at a Mr Frankland’s some way in the country, and I have a good deal
of writing on hand. Accept my best thanks for the letter and locket
which shall never quit me, though you know I did not want it as a
souvenir. I wish it was the Talisman, so famous in the “Arabian
Nights,” that conveyed its possessor in an instant wherever he
wished. I should often visit the happy circle at Hendon.
We really know no more of our destination than you do, except
that we all belong to the same, and are to join General Spencer at
Gibraltar, which is a great satisfaction. Hitherto we have been
longing for an opportunity to get out to him, not knowing but this
expedition might have quite a different destination.
We have a large list of the Staff, among which are many friends of
mine. Sir A. Wellesley, Lieut.-Genl. commands in chief, and under
him are Major Genls. Spencer, Hill, Ferguson, Br. Genls. Fane,
Crawford, Nightingale. Col. Torrens is Mily. Secretary, and a long list
of Staff-officers, which I need not trouble you with reading. Genls.
Fane and Crawford go in the Resistance with us, which will take
away greatly in point of room. The latter and his Brigade Major I
know very well, the former not at all, though I hear he is a very good
man. I could have dispensed with him very well, as they just turn us
poor ADCₛ out of our snug berths, and strangers will prevent that
pleasant gaiety and freedom we have enjoyed hitherto.
It is very uncertain when we shall sail. We are waiting for the
Donegal 74, Capt. Malcolm, and Crocodile frigate, and for some
transports, with Artillery and Cavalry, and some empty ones to thin
those now here, which are very much crowded, though hitherto quite
healthy. The additional room allowed looks like a longer voyage than
we expected, though Cavalry and our taking horses seems to
contradict this idea. I am rather for going to Spain. It is a noble
service assisting a nation fighting for its independence, and it is
impossible to say what a brave people fighting for liberty, and
actuated at the same time by resentment for great injuries, and a
bigoted attachment to ancient customs may do, if properly
supported. At all events, our assisting to the utmost of our power the
mother country will greatly facilitate our establishing the
independence of America, whither I hope will be our ultimate
destination.
 Sir A. W. is a very good officer, and much esteemed, and I trust we
have neither a Whitelock or Gower amongst us. I have not been very
well to-day—I expect from the effects of bad water—and so liable to
catch cold, that the General has made me put on flannel, and I find
myself better since I have ordered a dozen of waistcoats of it at
Cork.
We had a gay ball here on Friday, in a storehouse fitted up with
flags, for the relief of the distressed soldiers’ wives. We had a good
many people, and collected about £50 free of expenses, little enough
among so many objects. I have had a good deal of trouble, but who
would grudge it in such a cause? To-morrow there is a ball for the
poor wounded Dutchmen taken in the Guelderland. I have never
seen greater objects. Poor fellows! they fought very bravely, but
knew nothing of their business. Our Frigate only lost one killed and
one wounded, and they 60 in both.[5] I went to see them, and the
Genl. has sent the Officer refreshments and wine. He is an excellent
man. His purse is always open to distress, even too much. He is, I
fear, often imposed upon. I am much pleased for many reasons, you
may suppose, with Mr Adamson’s kindness. Pray thank him most
kindly from me. As for Moll, I shall be much affronted if he talks of
paying for her. He must accept her as a very small proof of my
friendship and very high regard for him, to say nothing of his
kindness to me and my gratitude for it. I hope Hardy will suit dear
Emily, and she will have him as a present from her affectionate
brother. I shall be able to afford not to sell him, if we have a long
voyage, and think she will like him with greater pleasure as a present
from me. I was rejoiced to see my friend Douglas, he is gone in to
Cork to-day and returns to-morrow....
I am anxiously waiting to hear of dear Tom’s arrival. Write to me
the moment he does. We are not likely to sail for some time,
Yrs., etc.,
Wm. W.

[5] See James’s Naval History, vol. iv., p. 324 ff. May 19, 1808.
“Guelderland,” Dutch 36-gun frigate taken by the “Virginie.”
 1808
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
After long delay the expedition under Lieut.-General Sir Arthur
Wellesley sailed from Cork on 12th July. Meanwhile the Government
had altered its mind as to the command of the army, and, after Sir
Arthur Wellesley had sailed, entrusted the command of the whole
force to Sir Hew Dalrymple. Under him were, in order of seniority, Sir
Harry Burrard, Sir John Moore, Sir Arthur Wellesley, who thus, after
his arrival in Portugal, found himself as the junior Lt.-General only
fourth in command.
On 26th July the fleet reached Porto Roads, and on 1st August
and the following days, the troops were landed at Figueira, in
Mondego Bay, not without difficulty, owing to the surf, which from the
open Atlantic beats with violence on the unprotected coast.
It was not till 9th August that the army was able to move forward.
Difficulties as to transport were almost insuperable, and some guns
had to be left behind. Wellesley had determined to take the coast
road, wishing to pick up on his way towards Lisbon the Brigades of
Anstruther and Acland which had sailed on July 19th, but had not yet
arrived. His impression was that Junot, the French Marshal, had
10,000 troops under his command, but he had under-estimated
these, which amounted in reality to about 26,000; though it was true
that Junot had detached about 7000 under Loison to quell the
insurrection in the Alemtejo.
On hearing of the landing in Mondego Bay, Junot hastily recalled
Loison, with orders to join De la Borde, who, with 5000 men, was
sent forward to observe and check the British army, till a
concentration of the French forces could take place. Loison,
however, whose force had a long and weary march, was delayed at
Santarem, and, on the day of Roliça, was full fifteen miles away from
the scene of the fight. De la Borde, who left Lisbon on August 6th,
advanced as far as Alcobaça, but fell back on a position he had
selected near Roliça. On August 16th the forces came into contact,
and on the 17th was fought the first combat of the Peninsular War,
which takes its name from Roliça. The action is described in the
letter from Lourinhao. Wellesley after the action moved on still by the
coast-line, neglecting Loison and allowing him unmolested to join
Junot at Cercal. He was anxious to pick up Acland and Anstruther,
who were reported off Peniche. They landed at Porto Novo, at the
mouth of the little river Maceira, 12 miles south of Roliça.
Meanwhile Junot, after many delays, had moved by Villa Franca
on Torres Vedras. It was not until the 20th that he learnt for certain
that the British force was keeping the coast road. On the evening of
the 20th he was ten miles south of Vimiero, where the British army
lay covering the disembarkation of the two Brigades. During the night
the French army marched, and at dawn on the 21st found itself close
under the British position. Followed on that day the Battle of Vimiero,
which is graphically described in the letters.
The victory was won; but to the disgust of the army, and
afterwards of the whole British nation, it was shorn of its glory, and
possible advantages, by the command of Sir Harry Burrard, who
landed in the course of the morning of the 21st, superseding Sir
Arthur Wellesley, and forbidding all pursuit. Burrard himself was
shortly superseded by Sir Hew Dalrymple, and the result which
ensued, in the Convention of Cintra, is too well known to need
comment here.
After the battle of Vimiero, William Warre was laid up with an
attack of enteric fever, which brought him to death’s door. He
recovered slowly, and by the month of October was sufficiently well
to see active service again as A.D.C. to General Beresford, who
commanded a brigade in the army of which Sir John Moore was the
C.-in-C. General Ferguson had not, as he had expected, returned
from England.
 LETTERS
Porto Roads, July 25, 1808.
My Dear Father,
We arrived this morning off this place, which was the appointed
Rendezvous. I have not been able to communicate with the shore
yet, and it is very uncertain whether I shall be able to see my friends
there, or land at all. I have just heard a Frigate is going to England,
and the boat is waiting to take my letter, so I have only time to say
we are all well. I think we are to land at Lisbon and attack Junot. This
is my idea, but nothing is known. To express my feelings at seeing
the spot of my birth, the place in which I spent some of the happiest
days of my life, would be impossible, or how tantalised at not being
able to communicate. Should we land, you shall hear further and by
first opportunity. At present they are calling for my letter.
Your ever affectionate son,
Wm. Warre.
I have opened this to say that I have a message from the
Commodore, saying he is sorry it will not be possible for me to land,
as they only wait for Sir A. Wellesley’s return from shore to make
sail. They are making dispositions for the anchoring of the fleet and
landing. Spencer is to join us. I am much disappointed at not landing
or communicating with shore.
A Deos,
Com as mayores saudades.[6]

[6] “With greatest regrets,” or, as we should say, “With much

love.”

Monday evening, July 25th, 1808. Off Ovar.

Dearest Father,
The enclosed is a second time returned to me, and as the
Peacock’s boat, by whom it is to go, is delayed a few minutes, I have
opened it to tell you we are making all sail for Figueira, where we are
to land to-morrow morning in order, I understand, to cut off a French
Corps marching to Lisbon to Junot’s assistance, and then to march
to Lisbon and try his mettle. I cannot imagine what Corps is meant,
as the annexed is the official account of their disposition in Spain
(minus 18,000 said to be killed in Spain, and some must have been
in Portugal), viz. (?9000) at St Sebastian, 6000 Pampelona, 15,000
Barcelona, closely besieged by the Patriots in great force, 10,000
Burgos, 2000 Vittoria, 50,000 Madrid and adjacent country, 16,000
Lisbon, said to be now reduced to 12,000. I have no accounts of the
state of the country. We made sail to the southward immediately, and
not a single boat came on board. Adieu.
I will write after our landing, if opportunity offers. The most anxious
moment I ever felt was seeing Porto and not being able either to
write or go near. Every house I could see looked beautiful to me who
felt how happy I had been there.

Camp Lavos, Nr. Figueira, Aug. 8, 1808.

My Dearest Mother,
I have seized the opportunity of a few leisure moments to write a
few lines just to tell you I am quite well, though a good deal fagged
and burnt by being constantly exposed to the sun, and the exertions,
which my knowledge of the language, and our situation, render
indispensable; though I feel the sincerest pleasure in being in any
way useful to my country or the service, and fully recompensed by it
for every fatigue.
We disembarked the first of this month. It took three days to land
the whole army, and had we been opposed from the land I am
positive we could never have effected it, so great is the surf both on
the coast and the bar. However, thank God, the whole army landed
without any loss but a horse or two, and now occupy a position at
this place, or rather with our left to the village and right to the sea,
where we have been waiting for the arrival of General Spencer and
his Corps, who arrived, and have been landing yesterday and to-day,
I trust without any loss, though the surf is very heavy.
We advance to attack Monsr. Junot the day after to-morrow; the
advance guard, under Genl. Fane, to-morrow. It is several days’
march. The severest part of the business is in these infamous roads
and scorching sun, which with the large train of Artillery and
Baggage will oblige us to move very slow. Junot has in all about
14,000 men, but he cannot long resist, being about to be completely
surrounded by us, about 13 to 15,000 in all, from the North, and by a
corps of about 6000 Portuguese; and from the North bank of the
Tagus, from Badajos, by a corps of 10,000 men from General
Castanhos’ army in Spain, I hear, the bravest fine fellows possible,
as is their General, and indeed the whole of the Spaniards in arms.
Nothing can exceed their courage and enmity to the French. Hitherto
their conduct has been most noble, and their praise in everybody’s
mouth. Andalusia is clear of French. Dupont and his army
capitulated to be sent to France with his arms, a curious concession
from the Spaniards, who are so much in want of them. Three armies
of French have been taken or destroyed, and Castanhos is in full
march towards Madrid, and every hope entertained of his success.
8000 of the French who had surrendered were massacred by the
Spanish peasantry, so great is their animosity. All this is positive
information. Castanhos has 45,000 men, 4000 of which excellent
cavalry, and about 23,000 Regulars. He is a very mild man, but a
fine fellow as ever was. Whittingham was in the action with
Castanhos; his conduct most gallant, and his praise universal in the
army. He is appointed a Colonel in the Spanish service, as a proof of
the esteem he is held in. The Portuguese have about 28,000 men in
all the kingdom, in arms of all descriptions, all badly armed, and I
fear not so enthusiastic in the cause (though they boast much) as
their neighbours the Spaniards. As to what the English papers say,
do not believe a word of it. I never read such a parcel of nonsense.