Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court – but not decided by the court – which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A report issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court – without a decision or written opinions published by or of the Court. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. History and legal dispute[edit] At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878–79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads "the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals Headnote[edit] Waite replied: C. Defense argument[edit] Notes[edit]
Corporate personhood Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. Corporate personhood in the United States[edit] As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Some opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. See also[edit]
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections," and the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund. Background[edit] The Michigan Campaign Finance Act banned corporations from spending treasury money on "independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices." Decision of the Supreme Court[edit] Louis J. The decision was overruled by Citizens United v. See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit] 494 U.S. 652 (Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com)
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003),[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act. It was partially overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).[2] History[edit] In May 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, but the ruling never took effect because the case was immediately appealed to the U.S. Oral arguments[edit] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session on September 8, 2003. Opinions[edit] Justices Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg established the majority for two parts of the Court's opinion: With respect to Titles I and II of the BCRA, Justices Stevens, O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court.With respect to Title V of the BCRA, Justice Breyer wrote the Court's opinion.
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. Background[edit] In 2002, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold" or "BCRA"), amending the Federal Election Campaign Act to further regulate money in public election campaigns. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. In the first round of litigation, the federal district court ruled that the language of McConnell v. On remand, the FEC argued that ads run so close to an election and naming a candidate or candidates should be presumed to have the intent of influencing the election, and thus BCRA's limitation on financing such ads with corporate funds was constitutionally valid. Opinion of the Supreme Court[edit] The decision of the Court, authored by Chief Justice John G. Proposed text of WRTL ad[edit] [Wedding scene] Visit: BeFair.org
Stop Online Piracy Act Failed United States bill Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in existing laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed. The bill received strong, bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Opponents argued that the proposed legislation threatened free speech and innovation, and enabled law enforcement to block access to entire Internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. History[edit] The bill establishes a two-step process for intellectual property-rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. Goals[edit]
Digital Millennium Copyright Act The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. Provisions[edit] Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act[edit] The second portion (17 U.S.C. 1201) is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act[edit] Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions[edit] 2010 rulemakings
PROTECT IP Act The PROTECT IP Act is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA),[5] which failed to pass in 2010. A similar House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), was introduced on October 26, 2011.[6] In the wake of online protests held on January 18, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that a vote on the bill would be postponed until issues raised about the bill were resolved.[7][8][9] Content[edit] The bill defines infringement as distribution of illegal copies, counterfeit goods, or anti-digital rights management technology. Infringement exists if "facts or circumstances suggest [the site] is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described Supporters[edit] Legislators[edit] The PROTECT IP Act has received bipartisan support in the Senate, with introduction sponsorship by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and, as of December 17, 2011, co-sponsorship by 40 Senators.[20] The U.S. Others[edit]