Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation , 438 U.S. 726 (1978), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate indecent content sent over the broadcast airwaves.
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960), was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Three events in American political history have been called [citation needed] a corrupt bargain: the 1824 United States presidential election, the Compromise of 1877, and Gerald Ford's 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon. In all cases, Congress or the President acted against the most clearly defined legal course of action at the time, although in no ...
Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores , 421 U.S. 723 (1975), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court , which ruled that only those suffering direct loss from the purchase or sale of stock had standing to sue under federal securities law.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.
To be sure, onshoring chip production has many upsides, including bolstering supply chains and even making the U.S. safer—one of the federal government’s stated reasons for implementing the ...
At some point in the mid-1980s, a pony-tailed upstate New York environmental activist named Jay Westerveld picked up a card in a South Pacific hotel room and read the following: "Save Our Planet ...
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.