Supreme Court of the United States, 1974

The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's holding that a privately owned Pennsylvania utility's termination of a customer's electric service for nonpayment, pursuant to a tariff provision the utility filed with the state Public Utility Commission under a notice-filing procedure, was not 'state action' under the…

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that purely intrastate sales of asphaltic concrete are not "in commerce" for purposes of § 2(a) Robinson‑Patman and §§ 3 and 7 Clayton Acts, and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court held that prisoners facing disciplinary sanctions involving loss of good-time credits or comparable serious consequences are entitled to procedural due process, including advance written notice, an opportunity to present evidence subject to institutional limitations, and a written statement of the evidence…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of petitioners' convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 for using the mails to distribute an obscene advertisement for the Illustrated Presidential Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and for conspiring to do so. Holding that Miller v.

The Supreme Court reversed Jenkins's conviction for distributing the film "Carnal Knowledge," holding that the film does not meet the Miller test for obscenity and therefore is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Supreme Court reversed Jenkins’s obscenity conviction, holding that the film “Carnal Knowledge” does not meet the Miller test for obscenity and therefore is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments; the Court also affirmed that states may use local community standards and that appellate courts must…

The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit and upheld Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice against Captain Howard Levy's claims that they are void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment and facially overbroad under the First Amendment.

The Court held that the Social Security provision excluding certain afterborn illegitimate children is unconstitutional because it discriminates between subclasses of illegitimate children without a legitimate governmental interest, vacating the district court's judgment and remanding for a chance to establish…

The Supreme Court held that the employment preference for qualified Indians in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, provided by § 12 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, was not impliedly repealed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, because repeals by implication are disfavored and the preference and the…

The Supreme Court held that the parties' agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of their international commercial transaction must be respected and enforced by the federal courts under the Arbitration Act, notwithstanding Alberto-Culver's claim that Scherk's representations about trademark ownership violated §…

The Supreme Court held that a federal prisoner may pursue a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking his conviction on the basis of an intervening change in law, rejecting the Ninth Circuit's determination that its earlier affirmance was 'the law of the case' foreclosing collateral relief after it later decided United States…

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court's order imposing 90% of class-notice costs on defendants, because that order was a final collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp.

The Court upheld Oregon's recoupment statute, which permits the State to recover appointed-counsel expenses from convicted defendants who later become able to pay without hardship.

Justice Stewart, writing for a seven‑justice majority, held that North Carolina's practice of filing a more serious felony indictment after a defendant has exercised his statutory right to a trial de novo violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it creates a risk of prosecutorial vindictiveness.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals, holding that Oregon's statute requiring indigent defendants who later become able to pay to reimburse the State for counsel costs does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses.

The Supreme Court held that § 718 of the Emergency School Aid Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1617, authorizes an award of attorneys' fees for services rendered before the statute's July 1, 1972 effective date where the propriety of the fee award was pending on direct review when the statute became law, because a court must apply…

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, held that federal patent law does not preempt Ohio trade secret law and reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the District Court's judgment.

The Court held that Louisiana's ex parte sequestration procedure did not violate procedural due process because it required specific sworn facts, judicial authorization, creditor security, and an immediate post-seizure hearing with damages available for wrongful seizure.

Justice Powell concurs with the majority, holding that the Louisiana sequestration statute satisfies procedural due process and should be upheld. He argues that Fuentes v. Shevin is effectively overruled, but maintains that the Louisiana law’s requirements for security and factual showing, followed by a prompt…

The Court held that an ambiguous prosecutorial comment during closing argument did not, in the context of the entire trial, deprive respondent of due process. The comment was isolated, was not the introduction or suppression of specific evidence, and was followed by a focused curative instruction directing the jury to…

The Supreme Court affirmed a three-judge District Court's judgment invalidating California Department of Corrections regulations that censored inmates' personal correspondence and a rule imposing an absolute ban on law students and legal paraprofessionals conducting attorney-client interviews.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court, holding that Florida's statute granting a $500 property‑tax exemption to widows but not to widowers does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Burger, held that the district courts erred in dismissing the §1983 actions against Ohio officials on Eleventh Amendment grounds and reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals, remanding the cases for further proceedings.

A plurality of the Court (Rehnquist, J., joined by Burger, C.J., and Stewart, J.) reversed a three-judge district court's summary judgment invalidating the Lloyd-La Follette Act's removal procedures and its 'such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service' standard.

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(6) applies to the redemption of firearms from a pawnshop, affirming Huddleston’s conviction. The majority reasoned that the statute’s terms “acquisition” and “sale or other disposition” include pawnshop redemptions and that legislative history supports a broad reading.

The Supreme Court held that AFDC recipients' equal protection challenge to New York's recoupment of emergency rent advances from future welfare grants was substantial enough to confer federal district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

The Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Rehnquist, held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from ordering a state to make retroactive public‑aid payments and that participation in the AABD program does not waive the state's sovereign immunity.

The Supreme Court held that federal declaratory relief is not precluded, regardless of whether injunctive relief may be appropriate, when no state prosecution is pending and the federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute, whether the attack on the statute is…

Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, held that the fee imposed by the Federal Communications Commission under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act is a permissible regulatory fee, not a tax, and therefore the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

The Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Burger, held that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires a defendant to be permitted to cross‑examine a prosecution witness about a juvenile adjudication when that information is relevant to bias, and reversed and remanded the Alaska Supreme Court’s…

The Court held that a warrantless search is valid against a nonconsenting occupant when voluntary consent is given by a third party with common authority or another sufficient relationship to the premises.

The Supreme Court held that district courts are not wholly divested of authority to grant interim injunctive relief to a discharged federal employee pending administrative appeal, but that such relief requires a showing of irreparable injury sufficient in kind and degree to override the disruption to the…

The Supreme Court held that an employee who submits a discrimination claim to final arbitration under the nondiscrimination clause of a collective-bargaining agreement does not forfeit his right to a de novo trial under Title VII.

Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that the complaint asserted a present right to possession grounded in federal law, thereby satisfying the requirements of §§1331 and 1362 and granting the district court subject‑matter jurisdiction. The Court reversed and remanded the appellate judgment.

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requiring school districts to take affirmative steps to remedy language deficiencies are within the authority of § 601 and therefore enforceable.

The Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court denies class action status, because Rule 23 makes putative class members mere passive beneficiaries…

Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that the complaint fails to satisfy the Article III case-or-controversy requirement and therefore reversing the Court of Appeals.

The Court held that Indiana's requirement that a political party swear it does not advocate governmental overthrow by force or violence violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it covers abstract advocacy as well as advocacy directed toward imminent unlawful action.

Justice Powell, writing for a six‑justice majority, held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not extend to grand‑jury proceedings because its primary purpose is deterrence of future unlawful police conduct, and applying it to grand juries would unduly impede their investigative function.