Jump to content

In re Primus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
new article
 
External links: Added US1stAmendment Freedom of Speech Clause Supreme Court case law navbox
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case
{{SCOTUSCase |Litigants=Marbury v. Madison
| Litigants=In re Primus
| ArgueDate=February 11
| ArgueDate=January 16
| ArgueYear=1803
| ArgueYear=1978
| DecideDate=February 24
| DecideDate=May 30
| DecideYear=1803
| DecideYear=1978
| FullName=William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
| FullName=In re Edna Smith Primus
| USVol=5
| USPage=137
| USVol=436
| USPage=412
| Citation=1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
| ParallelCitations=98 S. Ct. 1893; 56 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 417
| Prior=Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
| Prior=''In re Smith'', 268 S.C. 259, 233 [[S.E.2d]] 301 (1977); probable jurisdiction noted, {{ussc|434|814|1977|el=no}}.
| Subsequent=None
| Holding=Solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.
| Holding=Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
| Majority=Powell
| SCOTUS=1801–1804
| JoinMajority=Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Stevens; Marshall (all but the first paragraph of part VI)
| Majority=Marshall
| Concurrence=Blackmun
| JoinMajority=Paterson, Chase, Washington
| Concurrence2=Marshall (in part)
| NotParticipating=Cushing and Moore
| Dissent=Rehnquist
| LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. arts. I]], [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|III]]; [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] § 13
| NotParticipating=Brennan
| LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. I]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]]
}}
}}
==Notes and references==
{{clear}}
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}


'''''In re Primus''''', 436 U.S. 412 (1978), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] protection.

== Background ==
[[Edna Smith Primus]], the first Black woman to graduate from the [[University of South Carolina School of Law]], was a pro bono attorney for the [[South Carolina]] affiliate of the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU).<ref>{{Cite web |last=DeVelvis |first=Melissa |date=July 16, 2021 |title=Edna Smith Primus - University History |url=https://sc.edu/about/our_history/university_history/presidential_commission/commission_reports/final_report/appendices/appendix-3/primus-smith-edna/index.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230218074033/https://sc.edu/about/our_history/university_history/presidential_commission/commission_reports/final_report/appendices/appendix-3/primus-smith-edna/index.php |archive-date=2023-02-18 |access-date=2023-11-12 |website=University of South Carolina}}</ref> South Carolina had a policy of sterilizing certain women as a condition of receiving welfare. Primus sent letters to women who had been thus sterilized, offering the ACLU's legal assistance. The [[South Carolina Supreme Court]]'s disciplinary board reprimanded Primus for violating state bar rules against soliciting business. The South Carolina Supreme Court approved the discipline. Primus appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

== Opinion of the Court ==
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the discipline, ruling that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.

The opinion in ''In re Primus'' was released the same day as another First Amendment case relating to attorney solicitation, ''[[Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.|Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association]],'' 436 U.S. 447 (1978), which upheld a ban on attorney solicitation of accident victims within 30 days of the incident. The holdings were distinguished on account of the political expression and association elements present in ''Primus'' and absent in ''Ohralik''.

== See also ==
* ''[[NAACP v. Button]]'', {{ussc|371|415|1963}}
* [[Ambulance chasing]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==External links==
==External links==
{{wikisource}}
* {{wikisource-inline}}
* {{caselaw source
* {{caselaw source
| case=''Marbury v. Madison'', 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
| case=''In re Primus'', {{ussc|436|412|1978|el=no}}
| findlaw=http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html
| justia=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/412/
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep436/usrep436412/usrep436412.pdf
| justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-56
| other_source1=LII
}}
| other_url1=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZS.html
}}


{{US1stAmendment Freedom of Speech Clause Supreme Court case law|state=collapsed}}
{{US1stAmendment Assemble and Petition Clause Supreme Court case law}}

[[Category:1803 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Cases related to the American Civil Liberties Union ]]
[[Category:1978 in United States case law]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:United States Free Speech Clause case law]]
[[Category:United States professional responsibility case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]
[[Category:United States reproductive rights case law]]

Latest revision as of 13:50, 22 December 2024

In re Primus
Argued January 16, 1978
Decided May 30, 1978
Full case nameIn re Edna Smith Primus
Citations436 U.S. 412 (more)
98 S. Ct. 1893; 56 L. Ed. 2d 417
Case history
PriorIn re Smith, 268 S.C. 259, 233 S.E.2d 301 (1977); probable jurisdiction noted, 434 U.S. 814 (1977).
Holding
Solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Stevens; Marshall (all but the first paragraph of part VI)
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrenceMarshall (in part)
DissentRehnquist
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV

In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.

Background

[edit]

Edna Smith Primus, the first Black woman to graduate from the University of South Carolina School of Law, was a pro bono attorney for the South Carolina affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).[1] South Carolina had a policy of sterilizing certain women as a condition of receiving welfare. Primus sent letters to women who had been thus sterilized, offering the ACLU's legal assistance. The South Carolina Supreme Court's disciplinary board reprimanded Primus for violating state bar rules against soliciting business. The South Carolina Supreme Court approved the discipline. Primus appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court

[edit]

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the discipline, ruling that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.

The opinion in In re Primus was released the same day as another First Amendment case relating to attorney solicitation, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978), which upheld a ban on attorney solicitation of accident victims within 30 days of the incident. The holdings were distinguished on account of the political expression and association elements present in Primus and absent in Ohralik.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ DeVelvis, Melissa (July 16, 2021). "Edna Smith Primus - University History". University of South Carolina. Archived from the original on February 18, 2023. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
[edit]