Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1995 United States Supreme Court case
United States v. National Treasury Employees Union
Argued November 8, 1994
Decided February 22, 1995
Full case nameUnited States, et al. v. National Treasury Employees Union, et al.
Citations513U.S.454 (more)
115 S. Ct. 1003; 130L. Ed. 2d 964; 1995U.S. LEXIS 1624
Holding
Section 501(b) of theEthics in Government Act of 1978 violates theFirst Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concur/dissentO'Connor
DissentRehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Section 501(b) of theEthics in Government Act of 1978 violates theFirst Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Background

[edit]

Congress amended theEthics in Government Act of 1978 with the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101–194). In section 501(b), Congress prohibited its members, federal officers, and other government employees from "accepting anhonorarium for making an appearance, speech, or writing an article."[1]

TheNational Treasury Employees Union challenged this section as an unconstitutional violation of theFirst Amendment'sfreedom of speech protection.[1] The District Court held the honorarium ban unconstitutional and enjoined the government from enforcing it.[1] TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court's holding.

Opinion of the Court

[edit]

Associate JusticeJohn Paul Stevens authored the majority opinion. Citing the test put forward inPickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, the Court found that the restriction put in place in Section 501(b) of the Act "constitutes a wholesale deterrent to a broad category of expression by a massive number of potential speakers" requiring an even greater burden than that put forward inPickering.[2]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abc"United States v. National Treasury Employees Union". RetrievedMay 21, 2016.
  2. ^"United States v. Treasury Employees". RetrievedMay 21, 2016.[dead link]

External links

[edit]
Unprotected speech
Clear and
present danger

andimminent
lawless action
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
theheckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Government grants
and subsidies
Government speech
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Stub icon

This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRehnquist Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._National_Treasury_Employees_Union&oldid=1322011685"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp