Restraining order sought The government claimed it would cause “irreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States” and wanted to “enjoin The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on the Vietnam Policy.”

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged the scope of its actions in the Vietnam War with coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks—none of which were reported in the mainstream media. In June 2011, the documents forming the Pentagon Papers were declassified and publicly released.

Often referred to as the “Pentagon Papers” case, the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), defended the First Amendment right of free press against prior restraint by the government.

In this ruling, the Court established a “heavy presumption against prior restraint,” even in cases involving national security. This means that the Court is very likely to find cases of government censorship unconstitutional. New York Times Co.

United States, better known as the “Pentagon Papers” case, was a decision expanding freedom of the press and limits on the government’s power to interrupt that freedom. The government claimed the publication violated the Espionage Act and President Nixon ordered further publications halted. …

Simply put, New York Times v. Sullivan is important because it protects the press and the public’s right to criticize public officials in the conduct of their duties. This is an extraordinarily important democratic right, and is particularly valuable at times of political controversy and polarization.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld two of the three provisions of the Act under review, reasoning that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management.

The New York law prohibited the burning of the U.S. flag, and the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant burned the U.S. flag, and the utterances of the defendant were, in Black’s view, irrelevant.

United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) The federal government cannot commandeer a state into enacting a certain law. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 resulted from a plan developed by the National Governors’ Association.

The “take title” provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

The final of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Constitution largely to relieve tension and to assuage the fears of states’ rights advocates, who believed that the newly adopted Constitution would enable the federal government to run roughshod over the states …

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bond on November 5, 2013. On June 2, 2014, the Court issued a narrow ruling, holding that the Chemical Weapons Implementation Act does not apply to Bond’s conduct.

In support of her contention, Bond argued, “neither the Commerce Clause, nor the Necessary and Proper Clause in connection with the Treaty Power, could support [Section 229].”

Conclusion: The Court held that because the federal constitutional structure left local criminal activity primarily to the states, judicial precedent generally declined to read federal law as intruding on that responsibility, unless Congress clearly indicated that the law should have had such reach.

Lopez, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on April 26, 1995, ruled (5–4) that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because the U.S. Congress, in enacting the legislation, had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

He made three constitutional arguments. First, he argued that the law was not a regulation of commerce. Secondly, he believed the Tenth Amendment left the power to make rules for child labor to the states.

Keating-Owen Act of 1916; Commerce Clause of the U.S. Const. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a federal law regulating child labor. The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in modern times.

Summary. Hammer v. Dagenhart (247 U.S. 251) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with the federal government attempting to regulate child labor through the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled in favor for Dagenhart, nullifying the Keating-Owens act, which attempted to regulate child labor.

The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart’s father — Roland — had sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his fourteen year old son to work in a textile mill.