Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal.
United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the respondent's forcible abduction from a foreign country, despite the existence of an extradition treaty with said country, does not prohibit him from being tried before a U.S. court for violations of American criminal laws.
This category is for case law of the United States in the year ... Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. ... Chimento; U. United States v. Alvarez; United ...
In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment–striking down the law in a 6 to 3 decision.
The case was first filed in a state district court before the city moved it to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in 2017. [2] The district court selected to review the matter under intermediate scrutiny based on Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, rather than the strict scrutiny content-based standard of Reed v.
United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case about the First Amendment rights of a man who had been banned from entering a military base and later entered the base where he participated in a protest. According to the court, the base did not become a public forum just because it was holding an open ...
Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v.
Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that plaintiffs alleging retaliatory arrest need only provide evidence that their arrest occurred in circumstances where probable cause exists to arrest, but officers typically exercise discretion and decline to arrest. [1]