Roberts v. United States Jaycees

7 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth., et al., No. 11‐1234 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2014)

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaJanuary 6, 2014

    "The question on which the juryʹs determination likely hinged was whether, notwithstanding Matusickʹs misbehavior, which was well‐documented, his treatment at the hands of the ECWA and its personnel was motivated, at least in substantial part, by his relationship with Starks. That was a question upon which the hearing officerʹs findings had no bearing."The panel majority also holds, under the authority of Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), that "Matusickʹs betrothal to Starks under the circumstances presented here constituted an intimate association, part and parcel of their eventual marriage and entitled to similar protection under the First Amendment. Considering Matusickʹs interests in preserving and protecting his intimate espousal relationship with Starks, we conclude that the conduct that he alleges that the ECWA and the individual defendants committed violated his constitutional right to intimate association.

  2. Is Someone Who Makes No Loans, A Lender?

    Allen MatkinsKeith BishopJanuary 4, 2024

    ncingLaw. Although Judge Corley's decision is at odds with a common understanding of the meaning of "making loans", it is consistent with at least one prior enforcement decision that I wrote about several years ago. Commissioner Finds Funding Is Not A Sine Qua Non For Lender Status.I am surprised that Section 22009 has not been challenged as being void for vagueness because it is beyond all peradventure that persons of common intelligence can only guess as to its meaning and will differ as to its application. As Justice Brennan once observed:The requirement that government articulate its aims with a reasonable degree of clarity ensures that state power will be exercised only on behalf of policies reflecting an authoritative choice among competing social values, reduces the danger of caprice and discrimination in the administration of the laws, enables individuals to conform their conduct to the requirements of law, and permits meaningful judicial review.Roberts v. United States Jaycees(1984) 468 U.S. 609, 629, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462.[View source.]

  3. Can the Tennessee Democratic Party Disqualify Angie Dalton for Fundraising for Republicans?

    Daniel HorowitzDaniel A. HorwitzFebruary 22, 2018

    As to whether the TNDP is permitted to disqualify her from doing so, however, the law is equally clear: it can.Like ScotBlog? Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org[1]Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 3252, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984).[2]Id.

  4. Second Circuit sustains unique claim for interracial engagement discrimination

    Bergstein & Ullrich, LLPJanuary 7, 2014

    On the intimate association claim under Section 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment, the Court of Appeals reviews the flowery but hard-to-define guidelines governing these cases. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984), the Supreme Court said that the Constitution protects certain intimate relationships, like marriage. The Second Circuit finds that this must include "romantic relationships beyond marriage."

  5. Second Circuit

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaApril 5, 2011

    That comparators did not have as extensive a history of behavior potentially subject to legitimate discipline not determinative; jury could consider how other employees' disciplinary actions were handled.Panel holds, under the authority of Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), that "Matusickʹs betrothal to Starks under the circumstances presented here constituted an intimate association, part and parcel of their eventual marriage and entitled to similar protection under the First Amendment. Considering Matusickʹs interests in preserving and protecting his intimate espousal relationship with Starks, we conclude that the conduct that he alleges that the ECWA and the individual defendants committed violated his constitutional right to intimate association.

  6. A TEXAS BIGAMY DEFENSE

    John T. Floyd Law FirmJohn T. FloydMarch 31, 2009

    The freedom of association guaranteed by the Firth Amendment covers two separate but related rights: intrinsic and instrumental association. See: Roberts v. United States, 468 U.S. 609, 617-18 (1984). Holm alleged his conviction violated both rights of association.

  7. Border searches following Islamic conference in Toronto did not violate Constitution

    Bergstein & Ullrich, LLPNovember 26, 2007

    As it argued that known terrorists were going to attend the conference, the government also proved there was no other reasonable way to further this compelling interest other than to search everyone entering the United States. For you constitutional scholars out there, the Court of Appeals applied the Supreme Court's ruling seminal ruling on freedom of association, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.s. 609 (1984), in this context. For these reasons, the Second Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the searches violated their religious freedom.