Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 F.2d 1327 - James Edward Carlson v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense

James Edward Carlson v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense’s Empirical Analysis

511 F.2d 1327 · 1975

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
August 2011
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Brown v. Glines (1980), The Committee for Gi Rights v. Honorable Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the Army (1975)

25 federal appellate · 3 district ·

35019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Grayned v. City of Rockford · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ . . . while members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.” Carlson v. Schlesinger, 511 F.2d 1327, 1331 (D.C.Cir.1975), quoting Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 , 94 S.Ct. 2547, 2562 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974). In Schlesinger , the court went on to hold: “To strike the proper balance between legitimate military needs and individual liberties we must inquire whether ‘conditions peculiar to military life’ dictate affording different treatment to activity arising in a military context. Kauffman v. Secretary of the Air Force, . . . 415 F.2d 991, 997 [D.C.Cir.1969], cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1013 [ 90 S.Ct. 572 , 24 L.Ed.2d 505 ] (1970).” Carlson v. Schlesinger, supra, at 1331.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “I think, and any society which truly believes in a First Amendment must assume, that soldiers like other citizens can disagree with governmental policy and yet still realize that they must follow the legal requisites of that policy, including military service, until the policy is changed by democratic means.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the different character of the military community and of the military mission require a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside of it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.