enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States v. Alvarez - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

    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.

  3. Stolen Valor Act of 2005 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005

    Struck down by United States v. Alvarez in a 6–3 decision on June 28, 2012 The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 , signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, [ 1 ] was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals .

  4. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Playboy...

    United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required that cable television operators completely scramble or block channels that are "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" or limit their transmission to the hours of 10 pm to 6 am.

  5. National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the...

    National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, as amended in 1990, (20 U.S.C. § 954(d)(1)), was facially valid, as it neither inherently interfered with First Amendment rights nor violated constitutional vagueness principles.

  6. Copyright Act of 1909 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909

    In February 1908, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of pianola music rolls were not required to pay royalties to composers, based on the holding that these music rolls were not copies of musical compositions within the meaning of copyright law because it was not "a written or printed record in intelligible notation."

  7. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis

    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state ...

  8. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts...

    San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the trademark rights of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to regulate the use of the word "Olympic" under the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.

  9. American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tradition...

    With its ruling the Supreme Court upheld its Citizens United landmark decision. [19] While the Citizens United decision initially appeared to apply equally to state contests, [20] the Supreme Court ruled in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock that the Citizens United holding does so by applying it to Montana state law. [4]

  1. Related searches united states v. alvarez holding center for the arts definition of music

    us v alvarez wikipediaunited states v alvarez pdf