Schema-Root.org logo

 

  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.

Schema-Root.org logo
images:  google   yahoo YouTube
spacer

updated Sun. April 22, 2018

-
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. Bruce ...
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 case ...

... Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas · Jones v. FCC · Kelley v. Chicago Park District · Kleinman v. City of San Marcos · Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Lilly v. Smith · LSO v. Stroh · Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York · Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions · NEA v.
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 generally ...
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. Bruce ...

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 case ...
Finally, the Court distinguished Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 378-400 (1995)(“Lebron”), wherein the Supreme Court held that Amtrak was part of the government for purposes of the First Amendment. The Court noted that the Supreme Court's holding regarding the status of ...

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 generally ...
Kevin T. Baine, Washington, D.C. (Nicole K. Seligman, Steven M. Farina, Williams & Connolly, Washington, D.C., William G. Ballaine, Mark S. Landman, Siff ...
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 ...
Finally, the Court distinguished Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 378-400 (1995)(“Lebron”), wherein the Supreme ...
The central tenet of the First Amendment is that ideas may not be suppressed because they are unpopular, offensive, or even hateful. Government actions ...


 

news and opinion


 


 


 


 


schema-root.org

    usa
     government
      branches
       judicial branch
        supreme court
         decisions
          speech
            lebron v. national railroad

US Supreme Court free speech decisions:
            aclu v. reno
            chaplinsky v. new hampshire
            cohen v. california
            cox v. louisiana
            elrod v. burns
            fcc v. pacifica foundation
            garrison v. louisiana
            gooding v. wilson
            hustler magazine v. falwell
            lebron v. national railroad
            martin v. city of struthers
            r.a.v. v. city of st. paul
            street v. new york
            terminiello v. chicago
            united states v. grace
            widmar v. vincent,