From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1985 United States Supreme Court case
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense Fund , 473 U.S. 788 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case on the First Amendment and the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). The court ruled that excluding 'activist' organizations from those eligible to receive donations through the CFC system is not a violation of the First Amendment.
Combined Federal Campaign [ edit ] The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) system, created by then President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1957, allows employees of the federal government to donate money annually to a general fund which would be distributed to local organizations or to one organization in the program.[ 1]
In 1982, then U.S. President Ronald Reagan amended the program to only include organization that “provide or support direct health and welfare services” and explicitly barred the inclusion of organizations that engage in “political activity or advocacy, lobbying , or litigation ”. This excluded numerous legal defense funds from the program.[ 2]
NAACP LDF and PRLDEF [ edit ] In 1980, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (NAACP LDF), which is wholly separate from the NAACP , and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), both civil rights organizations operating legal defense funds, attempted to participate in the CFC. They were denied by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), resulting in three lawsuits, the third becoming Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
Alongside the NAACP LDF and PRLDEF, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund , the Federally Employed Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Indian Law Resource Center, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law , and the Natural Resources Defense Council were respondents in the case.[ 3]
In NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. v. Campbell (1981), the first of the suits, the legal defense funds challenged the requirement of "direct services" on the basis that it violated the First Amendment and equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment . The U.S. District Court for D.C. ruled that the "direct services" requirement was too vague to meet the specificity requirement of the First amendment, but not ruling on the equal protection question. As a result of the ruling, the NAACP LDF and other legal defense funds were able to participate in the 1982 and 1983 CFC program and receive funds.[ 3]
This section is empty. You can help by
adding to it .
(November 2024 )
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Public displays Statutory religious Public funding Religion in Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected
Incitement sedition Defamation andfalse speech Fighting words andheckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States United States v. One Book Called Ulysses Roth v. United States One, Inc. v. Olesen Smith v. California Marcus v. Search Warrant MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day Jacobellis v. Ohio Quantity of Books v. Kansas Ginzburg v. United States Memoirs v. Massachusetts Redrup v. New York Ginsberg v. New York Stanley v. Georgia United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs Kois v. Wisconsin Miller v. California Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film Jenkins v. Georgia Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut People v. Freeman United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. Reno v. ACLU United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Ashcroft v. ACLU I United States v. American Library Ass'n Ashcroft v. ACLU II Nitke v. Gonzales United States v. Williams American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland United States v. Kilbride United States v. Stevens Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Speech integral
Strict scrutiny Overbreadth Vagueness Symbolic speech Content-based Content-neutral
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy
Government grants Government Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act andLicensing and Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations Lehman v. Shaker Heights Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Bigelow v. Virginia Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro Carey v. Population Services International Bates v. State Bar of Arizona In re Primus Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association Friedman v. Rogers Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego In re R.M.J. Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind State University of New York v. Fox Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network Edenfield v. Fane United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. United States v. United Foods Inc. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Thompson v. Western States Medical Center Nike, Inc. v. Kasky Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Vidal v. Elster Campaign finance Anonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections
![[icon]](/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
