cross-referenced news and research resources about
LEBRON v. NATIONAL RAILROAD
LEBRON v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
Argued November 7, 1994
Decided February 21, 1995
Petitioner Lebron, who creates billboard displays that comment on
public issues, filed suit claiming, inter alia, that respondent National RAILROAD Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) had violated his First Amendment rights by rejecting a display for an Amtrak billboard because of its political nature. The District Court ruled that Amtrak, because of its close ties to the Federal Government, was a Government actor for First Amendment purposes, and that its rejection of the display was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that Amtrak was, by the terms of the legislation that created it, not a Government entity, and concluding that the Government was not so involved with Amtrak that the latter's decisions could be considered federal action.
Held:
Where, as here, the Government creates a corporation by special law, for the furtherance of governmental objectives, and retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of that corporation's directors, the corporation is part of the Government for purposes of the First Amendment. Pp. 3-26.
|
|
|
updated Sat. March 23, 2024
-
Blogging Censorship
November 23, 2015
Kevin T. Baine, Washington, D.C. (Nicole K. Seligman, Steven M. Farina, Williams & Connolly, Washington, D.C., William G. Ballaine, Mark S. Landman, Siff Rosen P.C., New York, New York, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. David D. Cole, Washington, D.C. (Center for Constitutional Rights, Washington, D.C., R. BruceÃâà...
Lexology
October 15, 2015
Finally, the Court also cited the precedent of Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995), which held that Amtrak was a governmental actor for purposes of a First Amendment challenge to its conduct. Can Statutes of Limitation on Claims Against the Government be Tolled? In a caseÃâà...
Blogging Censorship
February 21, 2014
... Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas Ãâ÷ Jones v. FCC Ãâ÷ Kelley v. Chicago Park District Ãâ÷ Kleinman v. City of San Marcos Ãâ÷ Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Lilly v. Smith Ãâ÷ LSO v. Stroh Ãâ÷ Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York Ãâ÷ Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions Ãâ÷ NEA v.
Blogging Censorship
February 14, 2014
The central tenet of the First Amendment is that ideas may not be suppressed because they are unpopular, offensive, or even hateful. Government actions restricting or penalizing certain kinds of speech because of hostility to the ideas expressed are considered to constitute viewpoint-discrimination and are generallyÃâà...
|
news and opinion
|
|
|
lebron v. national railroad
US Supreme Court free speech decisions:
lebron v. national railroad
|
|