Editor's notes. - The article, amendment, and section headings appearing in brackets have been inserted in this printing of the original Constitution. They generally follow those in the printing contained in The Constitution of the United States (5th Ed., 1952), published by the Library of Congress.

[Preamble]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Law reviews. - For article, "The Literary Force of the Preamble," see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 879 (1988). For introduction to symposium on religious dimensions of American constitutionalism, see 39 Emory L.J. 1 (1990). For article, "Religious Dimensions in the Development of American Constitutionalism," see 39 Emory L.J. 21 (1990). For article, "Constitutionalism as the American Religion: The Good Portion," see 39 Emory L.J. 203 (1990). For article, "In Celebration of the Constitution," see 19 Ga. St. B.J. 4 (April 2014). For note, "The Application of the Constitution Outside the Continental Limits of the United States," see 21 Ga. B.J. 246 (1958).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

State prisoners. - Constitutionally protected freedoms enjoyed by citizens-at-large may be withdrawn or constricted as to state prisoners, so far as justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. Polakoff v. Henderson, 370 F. Supp. 690 (N.D. Ga. 1973), aff'd, 488 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1974).

In order to raise a question as to the constitutionality of a "law," at least three things must be shown: (1) statute or particular part or parts of statute which the party would challenge must be stated or pointed out with fair precision; (2) the provisions of the Constitution, which it is claimed have been violated, must be clearly designated; and (3) it must be shown wherein the statute, or some designated part of it, violates such constitutional provision. Lockaby v. City of Cedartown, 151 Ga. App. 281 , 259 S.E.2d 683 (1979).

Former Code 1933, § 79A-907 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30 ) was not subject to constitutional attack under this section. Blincoe v. State, 231 Ga. 886 , 204 S.E.2d 597 (1974).

ARTICLE I.

Sec.

Law reviews. - For article, "Close Enough for Government Work: What Happens When Congress Doesn't Do Its Job," see 40 Emory L.J. 1007 (1991).

Section 1. [Legislative Powers]

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Law reviews. - For article discussing validity of "executive privilege" as defense to congressional demand for information, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 809 (1974). For article discussing the separation of powers implications of implied rights of actions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 973 (1983). For article, "Congress: The Purse, the Purpose, and the Power," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1986). For article, "The Impact of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on Federal Policy," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 17 (1986). For article, "Congress As Constitutional Decisionmaker and Its Power to Counter Judicial Doctrine," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 57 (1986). For article, "Separation of Political Powers: Boundaries or Balance?," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 171 (1986). For article, "The Framers' Understanding of Constitutional Deliberation in Congress," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 217 (1986). For article, "An Overview of the New Federal Sentencing Guidelines," see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 16 (1988). For article, "The Separation of Powers in a Federal System," see 37 Emory L.J. 538 (1988). For introduction to symposium on separation of powers, see 37 Emory L.J. 535 (1988). For article, "Preserving Judicial Integrity: Some Comments on the Role of the Judiciary Under the 'Blending' of Powers," see 37 Emory L.J. 587 (1988). For article, "The Preservation of Individual Liberty Through the Separation of Powers and Federalism: Reflections on the Shaping of Constitutional Immortality," see 37 Emory L.J. 613 (1988). For article, "The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC," see 38 Emory L.J. 714 (1989). For article, "Talking Textualism, Practicing Pragmatism: Rethinking the Supreme Court's Approach to Statutory Interpretation," see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 121 (2016). For article, "Do State Lines Make Public Health Emergencies Worse? Federal Versus State Control of Quarantine," see 67 Emory L.J. 491 (2018). For note, "Bowsher v. Synar: Bright-Line Rule or Dice-Toss Approach to Separation of Powers?," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 969 (1987).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Congress may fix standard and delegate details. - Legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated, but it is equally well settled that Congress may declare its will, and, after fixing a primary standard, devolve upon administrative officers the "power to fill up the details" by prescribing administrative rules. It is difficult to define the line which separates legislative power to make laws from administrative authority to make regulations, but when Congress has legislated and indicated its will, it can give to those who are to act under such general provisions power to fill up the details by the establishment of administrative rules and regulations, violation of which can be punished by fine or imprisonment fixed by Congress. Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 7 F. Supp. 139 (N.D. Ga. 1934), aff'd, 74 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1934).

Delegation of rule-making authority not delegation of legislative power. - That Congress cannot delegate legislative power is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution; but the authority to make administrative rules is not a delegation of legislative power, nor are such rules raised from an administrative to a legislative character because the violation thereof is punished as a public offense. So long as a policy is laid down and a standard established by a statute, no unconstitutional delegation of legislative power is involved in leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the legislature is to apply; but the constant recognition of the necessity and validity of such provisions, and the wide range of administrative authority which has been developed by means of them, cannot be allowed to obscure the limitations of the authority to delegate if our constitutional system is to be maintained. United States v. Griffin, 12 F. Supp. 135 (S.D. Ga. 1935).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Constitutionality and construction of Emergency Price Control Act as relating to rent, 148 A.L.R. 1403 ; 149 A.L.R. 1467 ; 150 A.L.R. 1462 ; 151 A.L.R. 1465 ; 152 A.L.R. 1462 ; 153 A.L.R. 1434 ; 154 A.L.R. 1460 ; 155 A.L.R. 1461 ; 156 A.L.R. 1459 ; 157 A.L.R. 1457 ; 158 A.L.R. 1464 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of Emergency Price Control Act, 148 A.L.R. 1429 ; 149 A.L.R. 1472 ; 150 A.L.R. 1470 ; 151 A.L.R. 1469 ; 152 A.L.R. 1472 ; 153 A.L.R. 1444 ; 154 A.L.R. 1468 ; 155 A.L.R. 1467 ; 156 A.L.R. 1467 ; 157 A.L.R. 1463 ; 158 A.L.R. 1474 .

Power and duty of court where Legislature renders constitutional mandate ineffectual by failing to enact statute necessary to make it effective or by repealing or amending statute previously passed for that purpose, 153 A.L.R. 522 .

Implied cause of action for damages for violation of provisions of state constitutions, 75 A.L.R.5th 619.

Validity, construction, and effect of domestic currency transaction reporting requirement based upon 31 U.S.C.S. § 5313(a), 89 A.L.R. Fed. 770.

School's violation of student's substantive due process rights by suspending or expelling student, 90 A.L.R.6th 235.

Section 2. [House of Representatives, How Constituted, Power of Impeachment]

The House of Representatives, shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Cross references. - Qualifications of electors, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. I; Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. II; and § 21-2-219 .

Factors disqualifying a person from nomination or election, §§ 21-2-7 , 21-2-8 .

Filling vacancies, § 21-2-543 .

Editor's notes. - U.S. Const., amend. 14, sec. III, modifies clause 2 of this section by imposing additional, but probably anachronistic, disqualifying criteria. The phrase "three fifths of all other persons" in clause 3 of this section referred to slaves and has been rendered obsolete by U.S. Const., amend. 13. The entire first sentence of clause 3 was subsequently superseded by U.S. Const., amend. 14, sec. II.

Law reviews. - For article analyzing constitutionally permissible modifications in qualifications established for representatives and senators, see 17 J. of Pub. L. 103 (1968). For article, "Reapportionment Recapitulated: 1960-1970," see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 191 (1970). For article considering the power of the United States House of Representatives to expel a member and the power of the judiciary to review such an expulsion, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 203 (1971). For survey of commercial law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (1982). For article, "Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990). For article, “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Constitutionalization of Statistics,” see 68 Emory L.J. 979 (2019). For note, "Partisan Gerrymandering and Georgia: Red, White, and Blue or Just Red and Blue?," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 487 (2019). For comment on South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276, 70 S. Ct. 641 , 94 L. Ed. 834 (1950) denying federal jurisdiction in case involving apportionment, see 2 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1950). For comment on Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 81 (1964), congressional districting, see 15 Mercer L. Rev. 504 (1964). For comment discussing "one man, one vote" doctrine in light of Wilkins v. Davis, 205 Va. 803, 139 S.E.2d 849 (1965), see 16 Mercer L. Rev. 446 (1965). For comment on Jenness v. Little, 306 F. Supp. 925 (N.D. Ga. 1969), on motion for stay on appeal and injunctive relief sub nom., Matthews v. Little, 396 U.S. 1223, 90 S. Ct. 17 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 45 (1969), as to the constitutionality of requiring a filing fee as prerequisite to candidacy in municipal elections, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 369 (1969).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

States can, within limits, specify qualifications of voters in both state and federal elections; the Constitution makes voters' qualifications rest on state law even in federal elections. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S. Ct. 801 , 9 L. Ed. 2 d 821 (1963).

Command that representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that as nearly as is practicable one person's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 481 (1964).

Within the states, legislatures may not draw lines of congressional districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater voice than others in choosing a congressional representative. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 481 (1964).

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. II, cl. 2 provides the sole and exclusive qualifications which must be met by a candidate for election to the United States House of Representatives. Lowe v. Fowler, 240 Ga. 213 , 240 S.E.2d 70 (1977).

Judicial review of census not a political question. - Judicial review of the accuracy of the federal census does not raise a nonjusticiable political question under U.S. Const., art. I, sec. II, cl. 3, which grants the exclusive power to Congress to determine the manner in which the census is conducted but does not exclude judicial review. City of Willacoochee v. Baldridge, 556 F. Supp. 551 (S.D. Ga. 1983).

Cited in Consolidated Utils. Co. v. Commissioner, 84 F.2d 548 (5th Cir. 1936); In re Cent. of Ga. Ry., 47 F. Supp. 786 (S.D. Ga. 1942); King v. Chapman, 62 F. Supp. 639 (M.D. Ga. 1945); Pollard v. State, 128 Ga. App. 470 , 197 S.E.2d 158 (1973); Smith v. State, 138 Ga. App. 226 , 225 S.E.2d 744 (1976); Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1981).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Section enumerates qualifications for federal office. - The only qualifications a candidate must possess to be eligible to seek the office of United States representative are those enumerated in U.S. Const., art. I, sec. II, cl. 2. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-62.

Other residency requirements unenforceable. - Insofar as they require a candidate for the United States House of Representatives to be a registered voter or to be a resident of the district from which election is sought, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. II, Para. III and O.C.G.A. § 21-2-132 are unenforceable. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-62.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Constitutionality of statute permitting payment of taxes in instalments, 101 A.L.R. 1335 .

Construction and application of vacancies in house of representatives clause of United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 4, and state provisions concerning such elections, 62 A.L.R. 6 th 143.

Section 3. [The Senate, How Constituted, Impeachment Trials]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Cross references. - Factors disqualifying a person from nomination or election, §§ 21-2-7 , 21-2-8 .

Editor's notes. - The manner in which senators are "chosen" and vacancies filled, as prescribed by clauses 1 and 2 of this section, respectively, has been modified by U.S. Const., amend. 17. United States Const., amend. 14, sec. III, modifies clause 3 of this section by imposing additional, but probably anachronistic, disqualifying criteria.

Law reviews. - For article analyzing constitutionally permissible modifications in qualifications established for representatives and senators, see 17 J. of Pub. L. 103 (1968). For article, "Chief Justice Burger and Extra-Case Activism," see 20 J. of Pub. L. 533 (1971).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in South v. Peters, 89 F. Supp. 672 (N.D. Ga. 1950); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 481 (1964); Bond v. Floyd, 251 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ga. 1966); Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga.)

Section 4. [Elections of Senators and Representatives, Meetings]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Cross references. - Manner of holding elections, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II and §§ 21-2-267 , 21-2-280 , 21-2-380 through 21-2-390 , 21-2-400 et seq., and 21-2-540 .

Times of elections, §§ 21-2-150 , 21-2-541 .

Places of elections, §§ 21-2-265 , 21-2-266 , 21-2-269 .

Editor's notes. - The date on which Congress shall assemble each year has been modified by U.S. Const., amend. 20, sec. II.

Law reviews. - For article, "Speech and Campaign Reform: Congress, The Courts and Community," see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 195 (1980). For comment on South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276, 70 S. Ct. 641 , 94 L. Ed. 834 (1950) denying federal jurisdiction in case involving apportionment, see 2 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1950). For comment, "Between Judgment and Law: Full Faith and Credit, Public Policy, and State Records," see 62 Emory L.J. 639 (2013).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

State congressional apportionment laws. - Nothing in the language of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. IV gives support to a construction that would immunize state congressional apportionment laws which debase citizen's right to vote from power of courts to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative destruction. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 481 (1964).

Regulation of mixed state-federal election. - The United States Constitution's necessary and proper clause, U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 18, along with U.S. Const., art. I, sec. IV, empowers Congress to regulate mixed federal-state elections, even if the federal candidate is unopposed. United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999).

Cited in Cook v. Fortson, 68 F. Supp. 624 (N.D. Ga. 1946); South v. Peters, 89 F. Supp. 672 (N.D. Ga. 1950); Bond v. Fortson, 334 F. Supp. 1192 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga.)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Application of equal protection principle recognized in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525 , 148 L. Ed. 2 d 388 (2000), to elections cases, 104 A.L.R.6th 547.

Section 5. [Quorum, Journals, Meetings, Adjournments]

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Law reviews. - For article considering the power of the United States House of Representatives to expel a member and the power of the judiciary to review such an expulsion, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 203 (1971). For article discussing validity of "executive privilege" as defense to congressional demand for information, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 809 (1974). For article, "Judging Congressional Elections," see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 359 (2017). For comment on South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276, 70 S. Ct. 641 , 94 L. Ed. 834 (1950) denying federal jurisdiction in case involving apportionment, see 2 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1950).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Judicial interference only upon showing of denial of due process. - If judicial interference can be successfully invoked under U.S. Const., art. I, sec. V, cls. 1 and 2, it can only be upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a denial of due process of law. Bond v. Floyd, 251 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ga.), rev'd on other grounds, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S. Ct. 339 , 17 L. Ed. 2 d 235 (1966).

Senate power of self-protection. - Under the Constitution, the Senate of the United States necessarily possesses the inherent power of self-protection. Bond v. Floyd, 251 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ga.), rev'd on other grounds, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S. Ct. 339 , 17 L. Ed. 2 d 235 (1966).

Courts of this state have jurisdiction of a proceeding brought under Art. 13, Ch. 2, T. 21, to obtain a recount of all or a portion of the ballots cast in an election for a representative to either House of Congress. Blackburn v. Hall, 115 Ga. App. 235 , 154 S.E.2d 392 (1967).

A generalized assertion of privilege yields to a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Privilege may not be invoked at expense of defendant's rights. - The legislative branch is not entitled to invoke privilege of confidentiality at the expense of an individual accused's right to evidence at a criminal trial. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Since the government that prosecutes an accused also has the duty to protect the defendant's constitutional rights, it may not undertake prosecution and then invoke its governmental privileges to deprive the accused of anything that might be material to the defense. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Scope of power to investigate. - Although the power of Congress to investigate for legislative purposes is inherent, it is not unlimited, and is always subject to limitations imposed by the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

There is no presidential privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial because of the guarantee of due process of law and the necessity to protect basic function of the courts. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - State court jurisdiction over contest involving primary election for member of Congress, 68 A.L.R.2d 1320.

Section 6. [Compensation, Privileges, Disabilities]

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Cross references. - Comparable prohibition against holding multiple offices or accepting office created during elected officer's term, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. II, Para. IV.

Comparable privilege from arrest for General Assembly members, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. IV, Para. IX.

Law reviews. - For article, "The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties: 1974-1975," see 24 Emory L.J. 937 (1975). For article, "Congress and the Fourth Amendment," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 107 (1986). For essay, "Standing and Rights," see 36 Emory L.J. 1195 (1987). For article, "The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC," see 38 Emory L.J. 714 (1989). For article, "Spallone v. United States: When Constitutional Principles Collide," see 7 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 527 (1991). For note discussing parameters of speech and debate clause as a defense in private civil suits and proposing balancing test to limit the privilege, see 10 Ga. L. Rev. 953 (1976). For comment on Methodist Fed'n for Social Action v. Eastland, 141 F. Supp. 729 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (three judges sitting), holding that the federal district court could not prevent the publication of a congressional handbook even though it falsely and defamatorily stated that plaintiff organization was a communist front, see 19 Ga. B.J. 366 (1957). For comment on Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 955 S. Ct. 1813 , 44 L. Ed. 324 (1975), refusing to allow a first amendment exception to the privilege of legislative immunity, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 1195 (1976).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Comparable Georgia Constitution provision. - Georgia Const. 1976, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. XII (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. IV, Para. IX) is similar to U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VI, cl. 1. Village of N. Atlanta v. Cook, 219 Ga. 316 , 133 S.E.2d 585 (1963).

Violation of speech or debate clause. - The speech or debate clause prohibited inquiry into a member of Congress's committee assignments even if the member's specific legislative acts were not mentioned since the privilege protects legislative status as well as legislative acts and the government's inquiry into defendant's committee memberships actually amounted to an inquiry into legislative acts where the government was allowed to argue a permissive inference that the defendant knew the details of the money-laundering statutes because of the defendant's status as a member of the Banking and Judiciary Committees. United States v. Swindall, 971 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040, 114 S. Ct. 683 , 126 L. Ed. 2 d 650 (1994).

Because the indictment charged that the defendant, a former member of the United States House of Representatives, had discussed money laundering transactions with an undercover agent and an intermediary, and then falsely testified to a grand jury to conceal the extent of the defendant's involvement in these discussions, questioning the defendant before the grand jury about the committee memberships violated the speech or debate clause of the United States Constitution; it was error to allow reference to be made to the defendant's committee memberships both in the grand jury proceeding and at trial; and the remedy for the violations of the privilege was dismissal of the affected counts. United States v. Swindall, 971 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040, 114 S. Ct. 683 , 126 L. Ed. 2 d 650 (1994).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Constitutional provision against increase in compensation of public officer during term of office as applicable to statute providing for first time for compensation for office, 144 A.L.R. 685 .

Incompatibility of offices or positions in the military and in the civil services, 147 A.L.R. 1419 ; 148 A.L.R. 1399 ; 150 A.L.R. 1444 .

Section 7. [Procedure in Passing Bills and Resolutions]

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Cross references. - Effective date of Georgia Acts, § 1-3-4 .

Editor's notes. - Unless otherwise provided in the subject legislation itself, a bill takes effect as of the date of its enactment. Lapeyre v. United States, 87 U.S. (17 Wall.) 191, 26 L. Ed. 606 (1872).

Law reviews. - For article, "History of the Veto Power in Georgia," see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 513 (1972). For survey of 1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on administrative law, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1057 (1988). For article, "The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC," see 38 Emory L.J. 714 (1989). For article, “The Law and Economics of Entrenchment,” see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 61 (2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - What amounts to an adjournment within constitutional provision that bill shall become a law if not returned by executive within specified time, unless adjournment prevents its return, 64 A.L.R. 1446 .

Power of executive to sign bill after adjournment, or during recess of Legislature, 64 A.L.R. 1468 .

Validity of veto as affected by failure to give reasons for vetoing or objections to measure vetoed, 119 A.L.R. 1189 .

Application of constitutional requirement that bills for raising revenue originate in lower House, 4 A.L.R.2d 973.

Effect of simultaneous repeal and re-enactment of all, or part, of legislative Act, 77 A.L.R.2d 336.

Section 8. [Powers of Congress]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; - And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Cross references. - Organization and training of militia, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Para. II and §§ 38-2-24 , 38-2-27 , 38-2-132 .

Weights and measures standards, §§ 10-2-2 , 10-2-3 .

Appointment of militia officers, §§ 38-2-150 , 38-2-152 , 38-2-210 .

State cession authority, §§ 50-2-22 , 50-2-25 .

Limited concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over ceded territory, §§ 50-2-23 , 50-2-25 through 50-2-27 .

Editor's notes. - U.S. Const., amend. 14, sec. IV, modifies clause 1 of this section by forbidding federal or state governments from assuming or paying certain debts.

Law reviews. - For article discussing fishing rights along maritime belt of the United States, in light of Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 68 S. Ct. 1157 , 92 L. Ed. 1460 (1948), see 11 Ga. B.J. 191 (1948). For article, "The Discriminatory Effect of Multiple State Taxation of Interstate Carriers," see 5 J. of Pub. L. 327 (1956). For article, "Georgia Water Law, Use and Control Factors," see 19 Ga. B.J. 119 (1956). For article, "Patterns of Social Legislation: Reflections on the Welfare State," see 6 J. of Pub. L. 3 (1957). For article, "The Law of the Land," focusing on the role of the Supreme Court, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 444 (1957). For article, "The Federal Loyalty Security Program - A Constitutional Dilemma," see 20 Ga. B.J. 473 (1958). For article, "Congress, the States and Commerce," see 8 J. of Pub. L. 47 (1959). For article criticizing statutory interpretation of Federal Power Act extending federal authority through the commerce clause, and proposing a balancing of interests test to protect state jurisdiction over production and gathering of natural gas and electricity when they are local activities, see 10 Mercer L. Rev. 226 (1959). For article, "The Subject-Matter Limitation Upon the Treaty-Making Power," see 11 J. of Pub. L. 122 (1962). For article discussing "Pre-Emption" Doctrine, in light of Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U.S. 297, 82 S. Ct. 327 , 7 L. Ed. 2 d 312 (1961), see 11 J. of Pub. L. 341 (1962). For article, "Consolidation by Compact: A Remedy for Preemption of State Food and Drug Laws," see 14 J. of Pub. L. 276 (1965). For article discussing discrimination in public accommodations, see 17 Mercer L. Rev. 338 (1965). For article discussing congressional power to regulate the value of currency in the case of a change in the par value of the dollar, see 16 J. of Pub. L. 51 (1967). For article discussing functional broadening of Congress' delegated powers and its effect on civil liberties, see 18 J. of Pub. L. 103 (1969). For article discussing validity of "executive privilege" as defense to congressional demand for information, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 809 (1974). For article, "Constitutional Issues In Federal No-Fault," see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 273 (1975). For article discussing developing principles of state sovereignty limitations on Congress' exercise of its granted powers, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 35 (1976). For article discussing the constitutional parameters of state efforts to stimulate international trade, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 391 (1976). For article analyzing the relationship between the military and the First Amendment right of individuals to engage in political activities, see 28 Emory L.J. 3 (1979). For article, "In their own image: The reframing of the due process clause by the United States Supreme Court", see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 479 (1979). For article, "Trademark Protection: Judicial Inconsistency in the Fifth Circuit," see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 1167 (1981). For article, "Federalism and State Taxation of Multistate Enterprises," see 32 Emory L.J. 89 (1983). For article, "Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930," see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986). For article, "Cable Copyright: The Role of the Copyright Office," see 35 Emory L.J. 621 (1986). For article, "Congress: The Purse, the Purpose, and the Power," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1986). For article, "Congress As Constitutional Decisionmaker and Its Power to Counter Judicial Doctrine," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 57 (1986). For article, "State Taxation of Interstate Banking," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1986). For article, "Plying the Erie Waters: Choice of Law in the Deterrence of Frivolous Appeals," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 653 (1987). For lecture, "Government, Society, and Anarchy," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 753 (1987). For article, "Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987). For article, "Georgia's Current Antitakeover Law: A Look at Management's New Shield," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 176 (1988). For article, "Biotechnology and the Law: Social Responsibility or Freedom of Scientific Inquiry?," see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 437 (1988). For article, "The Right of Personality: A Common-Law Basis for the Protection of the Moral Rights of Authors," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1988). For article, "Rethinking the Ban on General Solicitation," see 38 Emory L.J. 67 (1989). For article, "More Myths of Parity: State Court Forums and Constitutional Actions for the Right to Shelter," see 38 Emory L.J. 615 (1989). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990). For essay, "The Prospects for a Revival of Conservative Activism in Constitutional Jurisprudence," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 629 (1990). For article on copyright law and the public domain, see 39 Emory L.J. 965 (1990). For article, "Benson Revisited: The Case Against Patent Protection for Algorithms and Other Computer Program-Related Inventions," see 39 Emory L.J. 1025 (1990). For annual eleventh circuit survey of bankruptcy law, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 1277 (1991). For article, "Rights as Trumps," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 463 (1993). For article, "On-Line Computer Databases and CD-Roms Are Not the Electronic Equivalent of Microfilm: Tasini v. New York Times Co., Electronic Revisions, and Individual Contributions to Collective Works under the Copyright Act of 1976," see 15 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 521 (1998). For article, "The Origins and Application of the Military Deference Doctrine," see 35 Ga. L. Rev. 161 (2000). For article, "Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?," see 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002). For article, "Filburn's Legacy," see 52 Emory L.J. 1719 (2003). For article, "Patent Law for the General Practitioner," see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 10 (2003). For Eleventh Circuit survey article on intellectual property decisions in 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1327 (2004). For article, "An Information Theory of Copyright Law," see 61 Emory L.J. 71 (2014). For article, "Urban Decay, Austerity, and the Rule of Law," see 61 Emory L.J. 1 (2014). For article, "The Copymark Creep: How the Normative Standards of Fan Communities Can Rescue Copyright," see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 459 (2015). For article, "Putting the 'Public' Back in 'Public Use': Interpreting the 2011 Leahy Smith America Invents Act," see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 867 (2015). For annual survey of bankruptcy law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 819 (2016). For article, "Untangling the Market and the State," see 67 Emory L.J. 243 (2017). For annual review of admiralty law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 1001 (2018). For article, "Georgia's Unconstitutional Business Venue Provision: A Kingdom with Impermissible Borders," see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 433 (2018). For article, "More Property Rules Than Property? The Right to Exclude in Patent and Copyright," see 68 Emory L.J. 685 (2019). For article, “The Operational and Administrative Militaries,” see 53 Ga. L. Rev. 905 (2019). For note discussing Georgia corporate income tax in light of commerce clause immunity, see 10 Ga. B.J. 172 (1947). For note discussing the relationship of federal and state regulation of insurance, in light of In the Matter of American Hospital and Life Insurance Co., C.C.H. Trade Reg. Rep. 25,954 (FTC, April 24, 1956), see 5 J. of Pub. L. 494 (1956). For notes on amenability of dependents of servicemen and non-military employees to court-martial overseas, see 9 J. of Pub. L. 252 (1960). For note discussing the scope of federal police power under the commerce clause, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 359 (1970). For note discussing the constitutional implications of higher nonresident tuition fees charged by state universities, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 86 (1971). For note discussing the doctrine of federal preemption in the allocation of powers between the nation and the states, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 391 (1973). For note, "Oil Spills - State Prevention and the Possibility of Pre-emption," see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 559 (1973). For note discussing the twenty-first amendment limitation on state's power to regulate alcoholic beverages, in light of United States v. State Tax Comm'n, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S. Ct. 2183 , 3 7 L. Ed. 2 d 1 (1973), see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 336 (1973). For note discussing the commerce power and its relation to the tenth amendment in light of National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465 , 49 L. Ed. 2 d 245 (1976), see 25 Emory L.J. 937 (1976). For note discussing whether there is a freedom of scientific inquiry such that privately sponsored scientific research is beyond the reach of the federal commerce power, discussed in the context of recombinant dioxyribose nucleic acid research, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 785 (1977). For note discussing "Interstate Commerce" jurisdictional test in Sherman Act cases, in light of McLain v. Real Estate Bd., Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 100 S. Ct. 502 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 441 (1980), see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 714 (1981). For note, "Conditioning Access to the Public Forum on the Purchase of Insurance," see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 815 (1983). For note, "United States v. Stanley: Salt in a Serviceman's Wounds," see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1013 (1988). For note on the licensed-foundry defense in patent infringement cases, see 11 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 621 (1995). For note on solid waste disposal, flow control ordinances and regulations, see 32 Ga. L. Rev. 1227 (1998). For note, "United States v. Odom: The Eleventh Circuit Substantially Affects Federal Criminal Law Through Its Constitutional Analysis of the Jurisdictional Element of Section 844(i)," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 1735 (2002). For article introducing symposium on war powers under the constitution, see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 931 (2003). For article, "Constitution, Foreign Affairs and Presidential War-Making: A Response to Professor Powell," see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 947 (2003). For article, "Structuralism and the War Power: The Army, Navy and Militia Clauses," see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1021 (2003). For article, "A Constitutional Structure for Foreign Affairs," see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1059 (2003). For note, "DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno: The Supreme Court Hits the Brakes on Determining the Constitutionality of Investment Incentives Given by States to Corporate America," see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 1411 (2007). For note, "Rethinking the Role and Regulation of Private Military Companies: What the United States and United Kingdom Can Learn from Shared Experiences in the War on Terror," see 39 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 445 (2011). For note, "Foreign States are Foreign States: Why Foreign State-Owned Corporations Are Not Persons Under the Due Process Clause," see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 913 (2011). For note, "A Pharmaceutical Park Place: Why the Supreme Court Should Modify the Scope of the Patent Test for Reverse Payment Deals," see 20 J. Intell. Prop. L. 315 (2013). For note, "Patent Law and Means-Plus-Function Claim Language: Where It Was, Where It Is (Post Williamson v. Citrix), and Where It Should Go in the Future," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 899 (2018). For comment discussing state immunity from federal taxation in light of Allen v. Regents of Univ. Sys., 304 U.S. 439, 58 S. Ct. 980 , 82 L. Ed. 1448 (1938), Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 58 S. Ct. 969 , 82 L. Ed. 1427 (1938), and Helvering v. Therrell, 303 U.S. 218, 58 S. Ct. 539 , 82 L. Ed. 758 (1938), see 1 Ga. B.J. 43 (1938). For comment on Allen v. Regents of Univ. Sys., 304 U.S. 439, 58 S. Ct. 980 , 82 L. Ed. 1448 (1938), denying immunity from federal taxation to football tickets sold by University of Georgia, see 1 Ga. B.J. 46 (1939). For comment concerning constitutionally permissible government competition with private industry, in light of Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 59 S. Ct. 366 , 83 L. Ed. 543 (1939), see 1 Ga. B.J. 56 (1939). For comment on Herbert v. State, 60 Ga. App. 633 , 4 S.E.2d 843 (1939), see 2 Ga. B.J. 55 (1940). For comment regarding constitutionality of tax for the purpose of maintaining post roads levied on vehicles in interstate commerce, in light of Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Comm'n, 306 U.S. 72, 59 S. Ct. 435 , 83 L. Ed. 495 (1939), see 2 Ga. B.J. 75 (1940). For comment regarding constitutionality of sales tax imposed on receipts of sales of coal previously transported in interstate commerce, in light of McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 60 S. Ct. 388 , 84 L. Ed. 565 (1940), see 2 Ga. B.J. 80 (1940). For comment on Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U.S. 454, 61 S. Ct. 334 , 85 L. Ed. 275 (1940), holding state licensing tax on foreign retailers violates commerce clause, see 3 Ga. B.J. 74 (1941). For comment on Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193 , 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944), upholding constitutionality of exclusion of Japanese-Americans from military arms, see 7 Ga. B.J. 364 (1945). For comment on Beard v. Alexandria, 69 F. Supp. 722, (W.D. La. 1947), upholding constitutionality of ordinance prohibiting peddlers, hawkers, or itinerant merchants from going upon private residences to solicit orders or sell goods, see 10 Ga. B.J. 116 (1947). For comment discussing constitutionality of nondiscriminatory tax on motor carriers engaged solely in interstate commerce, in light of Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of R.R. Comm'rs, 332 U.S. 495, 68 S. Ct. 167 , 92 L. Ed. 99 (1947), see 10 Ga. B.J. 381 (1948). For comment on United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 68 S. Ct. 331 , 92 L. Ed. 297 (1948), holding federal regulation of all retail sales is constitutional where product has once moved in interstate commerce, see 10 Ga. B.J. 484 (1948). For comment on Gardella v. Chandler, 172 F.2d 402 (2d Cir. 1949), holding playing of baseball games in "organized baseball" constitutes interstate commerce, see 12 Ga. B.J. 100 (1949). For comment discussing constitutionality of state taxation of interstate motor carriers, in light of Capital Greyhound Lines v. Brice, 339 U.S. 542, 70 S. Ct. 806 , 94 L. Ed. 1053 (1950), see 13 Ga. B.J. 364 (1951). For comment on Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 71 S. Ct. 295 , 95 L. Ed. 329 (1951), holding unconstitutional five-mile limit placed on pasteurization of milk, see 13 Ga. B.J. 480 (1951). For comment discussing state regulation of interstate natural gas pipelines, in light of Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 340 U.S. 179, 71 S. Ct. 215 , 95 L. Ed. 190 (1950), see 13 Ga. B.J. 488 (1951). For comment on Beard v. City of Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S. Ct. 920 , 95 L. Ed. 1233 (1951), upholding constitutionality of "Green River" ordinances, see 14 Ga. B.J. 258 (1951). For comment on immunity of judicial sale held by trustee in bankruptcy from taxation by state, in light of California State Bd. of Equalization v. Goggin, 191 F.2d 726 (9th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 909, 72 S. Ct. 302 , 96 L. Ed. 680 (1952), see 1 J. of Pub. L. 504 (1952). For comment on Specter Motor Serv. Co. v. O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602, 71 S. Ct. 508 , 95 L. Ed. 573 (1951), holding Connecticut Corporation Tax Act of 1935 violative of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, see 14 Ga. B.J. 371 (1952). For comment on Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F. Supp. 383 (W.D. Mo. 1953), holding that a statute providing for the confinement of an accused found to be mentally incompetent until such time as the accused shall be mentally competent to stand trial is valid under the constitutional provision relating to "incidental powers," see 16 Ga. B.J. 236 (1953). For comment on Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, 348 U.S. 61, 75 S. Ct. 191 , 99 L. Ed. 68 (1954), holding the Federal Motor Carrier Act does not allow the state to suspend or revoke the right of interstate carriers for violations of state highway regulation, see 17 Ga. B.J. 403 (1955). For comment on United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S. Ct. 1 , 100 L. Ed. 8 (1955), holding necessary and proper clause does not permit subjection of ex-servicemen to trial by court-martial, see 7 Mercer L. Rev. 385 (1956). For comment discussing revocation of citizenship for concealment of a material fact, see 18 Ga. B.J. 506 (1956). For comment concerning state taxation of federal property, in light of Offutt Hous. Co. v. County of Sarpy, 351 U.S. 253, 76 S. Ct. 814 , 100 L. Ed. 1151 (1956), see 19 Ga. B.J. 247 (1956). For comment on Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222 , 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1148 (1957), and Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470, 76 S. Ct. 886 , 100 L. Ed. 1342 (1956), as to military authority overseas over dependents of servicemen, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 540 (1957). For comment on Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S. Ct. 1325 , 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1469 (1957), upholding the enjoining under a New York statute of distribution of certain obscene books, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 548 (1957). For comment on Railway Employes' Dep't v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S. Ct. 714 , 100 L. Ed. 1112 (1956), see 19 Ga. B.J. 550 (1957). For comment on West Point Whsle. Grocery Co. v. City of Opelika, 38 Ala. App. 444, 87 So. 2d 661 (1956), see 20 Ga. B.J. 403 (1958). For comment on Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 79 S. Ct. 357 , 3 L. Ed. 2 d 421 (1959), applying discrimination test for state taxation affecting interstate commerce, see 10 Mercer L. Rev. 327 (1959). For comment on Williams v. Stockham Valves & Fittings, Inc., 358 U.S. 450, 79 S. Ct. 357 , 3 L. Ed. 2 d 421 (1959), upholding constitutionality of state net income tax levied on revenues of foreign corporation derived from interstate commerce where tax is "fairly apportioned," see 22 Ga. B.J. 107 (1959). For comment discussing constitutionality of legislation requiring employees to pay dues to railway union in order to maintain employment, in light of International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S. Ct. 1784 , 6 L. Ed. 2 d 1141 (1961), see 24 Ga. B.J. 432 (1962). For comment discussing taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending, in light of Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942 , 20 L. Ed. 2 d 947 (1968), see 17 J. of Pub. L. 419 (1968). For comment on National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S. Ct. 1389 , 18 L. Ed. 2 d 505 (1967), as to constitutionality of imposing state use taxes on out of state mail order form, see 19 Mercer L. Rev. 257 (1968). For comment on O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S. Ct. 1683 , 23 L. Ed. 2 91 (1969), as to limits of court-martial's jurisdiction to try serviceman, see 18 J. of Pub. L. 471 (1969). For comment discussing limits on the military's jurisdiction and the constitutional rights of servicemen in light of O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S. Ct. 1683 , 23 L. Ed. 2 d 291 (1969), see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 311 (1969). For comment on United States v. Brand Jewelers, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 1293 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), as to implied power of the executive to sue, see 20 J. of Pub. L. 337 (1971). For comment on Anderson v. Laird, 316 F. Supp. 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1970), as to religious regulations at military academies, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 400 (1971). For comment on Reeves, Inc. v. Kelley, 586 F.2d 1230 (8th Cir. 1978), vacated and remanded, 444 U.S. 1031, 99 S. Ct. 2155 , 60 L. Ed. 2 d 1041 (1979), as to whether a state acting in a proprietary capacity as an interstate seller is restricted by the commerce clause, see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 1086 (1979). For comment on the commerce clause and economic self-protection, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 101 (1979). For comment on Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 100 S. Ct. 2758 , 65 L. Ed. 2 d 902 (1980), regarding the constitutionality of the ten percent set aside for minority contractors, etc., see 29 Emory L.J. 1127 (1980). For comment, "A Rose by Any Other Name: Computer Programs and the Idea-Expression Distinction," see 34 Emory L.J. 741 (1985). For comment, "Commerce and Outer Space: A Legal Survey," see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1551 (1986). For comment, "A Regulatory Theory of Copyright: Avoiding a First Amendment Conflict," see 35 Emory L.J. 163 (1986). For comment, "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis," see 36 Emory L.J. 285 (1987). For comment, "The Colorization Dispute: Moral Rights Theory as a Means of Judicial and Legislative Reform," see 38 Emory L.J. 237 (1989). For comment, "Reinforcing the Foundation: The Case Against Copyright Protection for Works of Architecture," see 39 Emory L.J. 1261 (1990). For comment, "Copyright Protection for Computer Languages: Creative Incentive or Technological Threat?" see 39 Emory L.J. 1293 (1990). For comment, "Can Anyone Own a Piece of the Clock?: The Troublesome Application of Copyright Law to Works of Historical Fiction, Interpretation, and Theory," see 42 Emory L.J. 253 (1993). For comment on general copying for classroom use as fair use under the copyright law, see 46 Emory L.J. 1363 (1997). For comment, "Choosing Between Principles of Federal Power: The Civil Rights Remedy of the Violence Against Women Act," see 47 Emory L.J. 819 (1998). For comment, "The Government's Right to Read: Maintaining State Access to Digital Data in the Age of Impenetrable Encryption," see 49 Emory L.J. 711 (2000). For comment, "Hegel's Secret: Personality and the Housemark Cases," see 52 Emory L.J. 515 (2003). For comment, "Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland: Reaffirming Ex parte Young and the Necessity of Finding Regulatory Hand-Back Schemes to a Gift or Gratuity," see 52 Emory L.J. 1519 (2003). For comment on the effect of Devlin v. Scardelletti and amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) on class action "minimal diversity" concerns, see 52 Emory L.J. 1877 (2003). For comment, "Pay What You Like - No, Really: Why Copyright Law Should Make Digital Music Free for Noncommercial Uses," see 58 Emory L.J. 1495 (2009). For comment, "Lawless by Design: Jurisdiction, Gender and Justice in Indian Country," see 59 Emory L.J. 1515 (2010). For comment, "Sparse Patient Protection for Research Tools: Expansion of the Safe Harbor has Changed the Rules," see 63 Emory L.J. 749 (2014). For comment, "Inherently Governmental: A Legal Argument for Ending Private Federal Prisons and Detention Centers," see 67 Emory L.J. 293 (2017). For comment, "Persona-Character Copyrights and Merger's Role in the Evolution of Entertainment Expressions," see 67 Emory L.J. 735 (2018). For comment, "Irrational Science Breeds Irrational Law," see 67 Emory L.J. 889 (2018).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

This section grants powers but it does not authorize Congress to delegate those powers. - Congress has power to enact a law to become effective when certain conditions come into existence and may delegate to an administrative officer the authority to determine, in accordance with the standard laid down by Congress, when the conditions have come into existence. Or, Congress may declare a policy and fix a definite standard by which the administrator is to be controlled and authorize him to make subordinate rules for the administration of the Act. Congress cannot, however, permit the administrator to determine what the law shall be. Payne v. Griffin, 51 F. Supp. 588 (M.D. Ga. 1943).

Extent of congressional authority. - The Constitution grants Congress the authority to make all laws necessary to effectuate its authority. However, this authority is not unchecked. Congress may pass only those laws which are consistent with the limits contained within the Constitution. United States v. Hill, 750 F. Supp. 524 (N.D. Ga. 1990).

Power to establish criminal defenses. - Congress clearly has the authority to establish and prescribe by law those defenses that are available to the defendants accused of federal criminal conduct. United States v. Hill, 750 F. Supp. 524 (N.D. Ga. 1990).

Regulation of mixed state-federal election. - The necessary and proper clause of this section, along with U.S. Const., art. I, sec. IV, empowers Congress to regulate mixed federal-state elections, even if the federal candidate is unopposed. United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999).

Cited in City of Waycross v. Bell, 169 Ga. 57 , 149 S.E. 641 (1929); In re Moore, 42 F.2d 475 (N.D. Ga. 1930); Citizens' & S. Nat'l Bank v. City of Atlanta, 46 F.2d 88 (N.D. Ga. 1931); Richardson v. Johnson Furn. Co., 176 Ga. 28 , 166 S.E. 662 (1932); In re Glover Casket Co., 1 F. Supp. 743 (N.D. Ga. 1932); Richmire v. Legg, 3 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Ga. 1933); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Nash Loan Co., 179 Ga. 52 , 175 S.E. 247 (1934); Rollins v. Legg, 179 Ga. 85 , 175 S.E. 382 (1934); Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 295 U.S. 285, 55 S. Ct. 709 , 79 L. Ed. 1439 (1935); Green v. Page, 9 F. Supp. 844 (S.D. Ga. 1935); Dean v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 193 Ga. 401 , 18 S.E.2d 756 (1942); Derrick v. City Council, 138 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1943); Perkins v. Brown, 53 F. Supp. 176 (S.D. Ga. 1943); Sykes v. Sanford, 150 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1945); United States ex rel. Goodman v. Hearn, 153 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1946); Benton v. Callaway, 165 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. 1948); Brown v. Sanford, 79 F. Supp. 146 (N.D. Ga. 1948); Blalock v. Brown, 78 Ga. App. 537 , 51 S.E.2d 610 (1949); Zuber v. Pennsylvania R.R., 82 F. Supp. 670 (N.D. Ga. 1949); Capitol Distrib. Co. v. Redwine, 206 Ga. 477 , 57 S.E.2d 578 (1950); Williams v. Cedartown Textiles, Inc., 208 Ga. 659 , 68 S.E.2d 705 (1952); Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. v. Oneida, Ltd., 209 Ga. 613 , 75 S.E.2d 161 (1953); United States v. Denmark, 119 F. Supp. 647 (S.D. Ga. 1953); Bisson v. Howard, 224 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1955); Looper v. Georgia, S. & Fla. Ry., 213 Ga. 279 , 99 S.E.2d 101 (1957); Smith v. UMW, 180 F. Supp. 796 (M.D. Ga. 1958); Stockham Valves & Fittings, Inc. v. Williams, 214 Ga. 803 , 108 S.E.2d 314 (1959); Central of Ga. Ry. v. Brower, 102 Ga. App. 462 , 116 S.E.2d 679 (1960); Coke v. City of Atlanta, 184 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. Ga. 1960); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 393 (N.D. Ga. 1964); U.S. Steel Corp. v. Undercofler, 220 Ga. 553 , 140 S.E.2d 269 (1965); Independent Publishing Co. v. Hawes, 224 Ga. 728 , 164 S.E.2d 559 (1968); Gilstrap v. United States, 389 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1968); Cross v. State, 122 Ga. App. 208 , 176 S.E.2d 517 (1970); DeKalb County v. Empire Distribs., Inc., 229 Ga. 497 , 192 S.E.2d 346 (1972); United States v. Crow, Pope & Land Enters., Inc., 340 F. Supp. 25 (N.D. Ga. 1972); Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975); Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 495 (1976); DeKalb Cablevision Corp. v. Press Ass'n, 141 Ga. App. 1 , 232 S.E.2d 353 (1977); Fred Whitaker Co. v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 551 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1977); General Fin. Corp. v. Garner, 556 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, 439 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Ga. 1977); City of Macon v. Marshall, 439 F. Supp. 1209 (M.D. Ga. 1977); Georgia Franchise Practices Comm'n v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 240 Ga. 743 , 242 S.E.2d 69 (1978); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 449 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ga. 1978); Keenan Co. v. Pamlico, Inc., 245 Ga. 842 , 268 S.E.2d 334 (1980); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 515 F. Supp. 176 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Joyner v. Golden Dome Inv. Co., 7 Bankr. 596 (M.D. Ga. 1980); United States v. Yeatts, 639 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1981); Windfaire, Inc. v. Busbee, 523 F. Supp. 868 (N.D. Ga. 1981); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 673 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1982); Bleakley v. Jekyll Island-State Park Auth., 536 F. Supp. 236 (S.D. Ga. 1982); McCroan v. Bailey, 543 F. Supp. 1201 (S.D. Ga. 1982); Chemical Bank v. Grigsby's World of Carpet, Inc. (In re WWG Indus., Inc.), 44 Bankr. 287 (N.D. Ga. 1984); Geowaste of Ga., Inc. v. Tanner, 875 F. Supp. 830 (M.D. Ga. 1995).

Spending

Monetary awards for intentional torts. - Spending clause statutes may authorize monetary awards for intentional violations. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 112 S. Ct. 1028 , 117 L. Ed. 2 d 208 (1992).

Power of Congress to provide for payment of obligations in legal tender. - Sections 462 and 463 of 31 U.S.C., providing for discharge, by payment in legal tender, of obligations for payment in gold or any particular coin or currency, or in money of the United States measured thereby, of the then standard weight and fineness, are not unconstitutional as in violation of this section, as the exercise of a power not delegated to Congress, nor in violation of the due process clause of U.S. Const., amend. 5 or amend. 10. Smith v. Bukofzer, 180 Ga. 585 , 180 S.E. 358 (1935).

Congress authorized to impose conditions upon receipt of federal funds. - Congress has the authority under the spending clause to impose conditions that attach by the terms of the statute involved upon the receipt of federal funds offered under a federal act. Georgia Ass'n of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 716 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1983), vacated on other grounds, 468 U.S. 1213, 104 S. Ct. 3582 , 82 L. Ed. 2 d 880 (1984).

Taxation

Business conducted by state for gain. - The immunity implied from dual sovereignty recognized by Constitution does not extend to business enterprises conducted by states for gain. Allen v. Regents of Univ. Sys., 304 U.S. 439, 58 S. Ct. 980 , 82 L. Ed. 1448 (1938), overruled on other grounds, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005 , 83 L. Ed. 2 d 1016 (1985).

Power of judiciary to impinge upon rules of taxation established by Congress. - Congress bears the responsibility for establishing rules of taxation, and as long as Congress has acted within its constitutional powers, the judiciary cannot use its broad powers to frustrate specific statutory language. Fears v. United States, 386 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Ga. 1975), aff'd, 518 F.2d 1405 (5th Cir. 1975).

Congress does not have an unlimited right to tax the citizenry. - A federal statute passed under the taxing power may be so arbitrary and capricious as to violate due process clause of U.S. Const., amend. 5. Fears v. United States, 386 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Ga. 1975), aff'd, 518 F.2d 1405 (5th Cir. 1975).

Unconstitutionality of tax measure derives neither from unequal imposition nor from unequal incidence, but rather from that special instance where the law is so arbitrary as to compel the conclusion that it does not involve an exertion of the taxing power, but constitutes, in substance and effect, the direct exertion of a different and forbidden power, as, for example, the confiscation of property. Fears v. United States, 386 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Ga. 1975), aff'd, 518 F.2d 1405 (5th Cir. 1975).

Within constitutional limitations, there is no equity in tax law. Fears v. United States, 386 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Ga. 1975), aff'd, 518 F.2d 1405 (5th Cir. 1975).

Commerce
1. Interstate and Foreign Commerce Transactions

"Interstate commerce" defined. - Interstate commerce consists of intercourse and traffic between citizens or inhabitants of different states, and includes the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities. American Mills Co. v. Doyal, 46 Ga. App. 236 , 167 S.E. 312 (1933).

Determination of whether cause affects interstate commerce. - Where interstate commerce is affected, it is not a question of whether the affecting cause is a transaction in interstate or intrastate commerce, or an intrastate process, or intrastate understanding or combination, but rather a question of whether the cause really and substantially affects interstate commerce. Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 7 F. Supp. 139 (N.D. Ga. 1934), aff'd, 74 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1934).

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that if manufacturer had minimum contacts with Georgia sufficient to support personal jurisdiction on a stream of commerce theory. Maxwell Chase Techs., L.L.C. v. KMB Produce, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (N.D. Ga. 1999).

Determination of whether transaction constitutes interstate commerce. - In determining what does and does not constitute commerce, the circumstances, continuance, and extent of the transaction in question may be considered, and no court has ever attempted to lay down a definite and unvarying formula by which the problem may be solved. Commerce is not a technical, legal conception, but rather a practical one, drawn from the course of business. The exigencies of trade determine what is essential to the business or process of interstate commerce in that trade. Interstate commerce is increased and enlarged with each additional degree and development of transportation and communication. Fleming v. Alterman, 38 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. Ga. 1941).

Passage of a person from one state to another is interstate commerce within meaning of Constitution, and enactment by Congress of statute making it a federal offense to do so for purpose of escaping prosecution for a crime, is within the power of Congress. Simmons v. Zerbst, 18 F. Supp. 929 (N.D. Ga. 1937).

Federal commerce power encompasses the movement in interstate commerce of persons as well as commodities. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 86 S. Ct. 1170 , 16 L. Ed. 2 d 239 (1966).

State cannot authorize violation of commerce clause. - A state cannot authorize activity which violates the commerce clause; thus, if the Georgia statute enabling authorities to enter into agreements for exclusive rights with respect to solid waste disposal is interpreted to exclude competition from the solid waste disposal market, then it would conflict with the commerce clause, and, accordingly, conduct of authorities pursuant to the statute would not be entitled to state action immunity. Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts County, 855 F. Supp. 1264 (M.D. Ga. 1994).

If the contract is for sale of article and for its delivery to buyer in another state, transaction is one of interstate commerce. American Mills Co. v. Doyal, 46 Ga. App. 236 , 167 S.E. 312 (1933).

Manufacturing alone, within a single state, is not commerce and the fact that the things manufactured are to be shipped or used in interstate commerce does not make their production a part thereof. Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 7 F. Supp. 139 (N.D. Ga. 1934), aff'd, 74 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1934).

One who ships interstate is unquestionably engaged in commerce, and one whose business is to all practical purposes exclusively the receipt and distribution of such shipments by wholesale and in such manner as to produce a constant and continuous recurrence thereof is as much a part thereof by the day-in and day-out receipt and distribution of such goods as one who ships them. Each activity is a part of the whole of commerce among the several states, and the whole includes the parts. Fleming v. Alterman, 38 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. Ga. 1941).

Question of whether there is subsequent interstate shipment furnishes one test of interstate commerce, but does not supply a definite and unvarying standard which may be applied to all transactions to measure and define their interstate or intrastate character. Of necessity, each transaction and business must be determined in the light of all surrounding circumstances. Fleming v. Alterman, 38 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. Ga. 1941).

If transportation has acquired an interstate character it continues at least until the load reaches the point where the parties originally intended that the movement should finally end. Fleming v. Alterman, 38 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. Ga. 1941).

Commerce in tobacco is overwhelmingly interstate and foreign. Mulford v. Smith, 24 F. Supp. 919 (M.D. Ga. 1938), aff'd, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S. Ct. 648 , 83 L. Ed. 1092 (1939).

Nationwide business of local sales contracts. - A nationwide business is not deprived of its interstate character merely because it is built upon sales contracts which are local in nature. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162 , 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944) (decided under prior law).

Radio broadcasting or communications are all interstate; this is so although such broadcasting may be intended for intrastate transmissions only. Radio broadcasting is an instrumentality of interstate commerce and subject to regulation under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Regents of Univ. Sys. v. Carroll, 78 Ga. App. 292 , 50 S.E.2d 808 (1948), aff'd, 338 U.S. 586, 70 S. Ct. 370 , 94 L. Ed. 363 (1950).

Private transactions of public utility not subject to regulation as interstate commerce. - Although radio broadcasting is truly an interstate proposition, and an operator of radio broadcasting station is an operator of public utility and thus subject to regulation as any other public utility engaged in interstate transactions would be under the authority given Congress by the commerce clause of the Constitution, its private transactions, not affected with a public interest and not connected with its operation as an interstate public utility, are not subject to regulation and control by Federal Communications Commission under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), or any other governmental agency empowered to regulate interstate transactions of a public utility; matters of private concern and contracts affecting private rights, which do not have as their subject matter the rights conferred by a license or do not substantially affect such rights, are not within the scope of the commission's power to regulate and control, in the public interest, broadcasting by radio stations and licenses to such stations. Regents of Univ. Sys. v. Carroll, 78 Ga. App. 292 , 50 S.E.2d 808 (1948), aff'd, 338 U.S. 586, 70 S. Ct. 370 , 94 L. Ed. 363 (1950).

Under facts, restaurant engaged in interstate commerce. - Because witnesses testified that upon presenting themselves for service no inquiry was made as to their place of residence, and because the restaurant had several large signs on two important business route portions of federal highways, and because the restaurant itself was situated on a main business route, a federal interstate highway, and because it was clear beyond any question that a very substantial part of the dollar value of the food and other products served or sold by the restaurant originated outside of the state and thus had moved in commerce, the restaurant was engaged in interstate commerce. Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant, 231 F. Supp. 396 (N.D. Ga. 1964), appeal dismissed sub nom. Maddox v. Willis, 382 U.S. 18, 86 S. Ct. 72 , 15 L. Ed. 2 d 13 (1965).

Noncommercial, illegal, or sporadic transactions. - Not only may transactions be commerce though noncommercial, but they may also be commerce though illegal and sporadic, and though they do not utilize common carriers or concern the flow of anything more tangible than electrons and information. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162 , 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944) (decided under prior law).

Acquisition of firearms by felons, etc., subject to regulation as interstate commerce. - The acquisition of firearms by convicted felons and persons under indictment for felonies, although arguably intrastate activity, imposes a sufficient burden upon interstate commerce to be a proper subject for federal regulation. United States v. Nelson, 458 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1972).

Federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by domestic violence offenders. - Federal statute prohibiting anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing or receiving a firearm did not violate the commerce clause. National Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1997), aff'd sub nom. Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998).

Organizations affecting commerce may not escape coverage of social legislation by showing that they were created for fraternal or religious purposes. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

2. Power of Congress to Regulate

Scope of power. - Power of Congress over interstate commerce is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed by the Constitution. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451 , 85 L. Ed. 609 (1941); Drake v. Hirsch, 40 F. Supp. 290 (N.D. Ga. 1941); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 348 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 258 (1964).

Power to regulate commerce is the power to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. It extends not only to those regulations which aid, foster, and protect the commerce, but embraces those which prohibit it. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451 , 85 L. Ed. 609 (1941).

Power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the power granted to Congress to regulate interstate commerce. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451 , 85 L. Ed. 609 (1941); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 348 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 258 (1964); Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant, 231 F. Supp. 396 (N.D. Ga. 1964), appeal dismissed sub nom. Maddox v. Willis, 382 U.S. 18, 86 S. Ct. 72 , 15 L. Ed. 2 d 13 (1965).

Commerce clause gives exclusive power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and its failure to act on the subject in area of taxation nevertheless requires that interstate commerce shall be free from any direct restrictions or impositions by the states. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 79 S. Ct. 357 , 3 L. Ed. 2 d 421 (1959);(decided under prior law).

Supremacy of federal power. - Regulations of commerce by Congress, including those of persons carrying it on and the instrumentalities used in it, although they may fall within field of ordinary police power, such as laws regulating employers' liability, hours of service of employees, safety appliances on equipment, and the like, will override police regulations of state when in conflict with them, because of the supremacy of the federal Constitution and laws, although in the absence of congressional legislation such state regulation would stand. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

Where Congress assumes regulation and control of interstate commerce its power is supreme and any state regulations to the contrary are of no effect. Tucker v. Casualty Reciprocal Exch., 40 F. Supp. 383 (N.D. Ga. 1941).

If interstate and intrastate commerce are served by same instrumentalities of common carrier, and it appears that a state regulation applied directly to intrastate business may in fact burden interstate commerce, such state regulation must yield to the federal power to assure adequate interstate service. Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 207 Ga. 675 , 63 S.E.2d 878 (1951).

Commerce clause is restricted by its terms to the control of interstate commerce. Montgomery & Atlanta Freight Lines v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 175 Ga. 826 , 166 S.E. 200 (1932).

Whatever affects interstate commerce in a substantial and direct way may be regulated by Congress, regardless of whether the affecting cause is a transaction in intrastate process or agreement. Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 7 F. Supp. 139 (N.D. Ga. 1934), aff'd, 74 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1934).

Congress has power to regulate transactions in and affecting interstate commerce by removing discriminations against and burdens upon it and by measures to foster and promote its growth and insure its safety. Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 7 F. Supp. 139 (N.D. Ga. 1934), aff'd, 74 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1934).

Exercise of congressional power to regulate. - Commerce means something more than traffic; it is intercourse, and the power committed to Congress to regulate commerce is exercised by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. Simmons v. Zerbst, 18 F. Supp. 929 (N.D. Ga. 1937).

Elements of Congress' regulatory power. - Any rule which is intended to foster, protect, and conserve commerce, or to prevent the flow of commerce from working harm to the people of the nation, is within the competence of Congress. Within these limits, the exercise of the power, the grant being unlimited in its terms, may lawfully extend to the absolute prohibition of such commerce, and, a fortiori, to limitation of the amount of a given commodity which may be transported in such commerce. The motive of Congress in exerting the power is irrelevant to the validity of the legislation. Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S. Ct. 648 , 83 L. Ed. 1092 (1939).

If regulation of interstate commerce of any kind is needed, Congress, not the states, must furnish it; and it may be of any kind not prohibited by other constitutional provisions. Mulford v. Smith, 24 F. Supp. 919 (M.D. Ga. 1938), aff'd, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S. Ct. 648 , 83 L. Ed. 1092 (1939).

Federal power over intrastate railroad tracks and agencies. Congress's preemption of state regulatory authority over intrastate railroad tracks and agencies is a valid exercise of its authority to regulate under the commerce clause. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 944 F. Supp. 1573 (N.D. Ga. 1996).

Intrastate rates may be controlled by Congress when so involved with interstate commerce as to make it necessary. Mulford v. Smith, 24 F. Supp. 919 (M.D. Ga. 1938), aff'd, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S. Ct. 648 , 83 L. Ed. 1092 (1939).

Within its sphere, the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is in its nature a police power, to be exerted for the public good and in any way, not prohibited, which Congress deems calculated to achieve the desired regulatory effect. This may involve affecting or controlling what would usually pertain to the state police power. Mulford v. Smith, 24 F. Supp. 919 (M.D. Ga. 1938), aff'd, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S. Ct. 648 , 83 L. Ed. 1092 (1939).

Power to regulate certain local activities. - While agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and the like, are in themselves local activities, the regulation of which generally belongs to the states and not to Congress, and sales made within the state are not intended at the time to result in removing the goods from the state, it may not be maintained that such intrinsically local matters do not under some circumstances become so interwoven with interstate and foreign commerce as to render it necessary and proper for Congress to affect to control them in order to regulate the interstate and foreign commerce which springs from them. The power of Congress to regulate such commerce is paramount and very broad. Mulford v. Smith, 24 F. Supp. 919 (M.D. Ga. 1938), aff'd, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S. Ct. 648 , 83 L. Ed. 1092 (1939).

Motive and purpose of regulation of interstate commerce are matters for legislative judgment upon the exercise of which the Constitution places no restriction and over which the courts are given no control. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451 , 85 L. Ed. 609 (1941).

Congress can regulate traffic though it consists of intangibles. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162 , 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944) (decided under prior law).

Incidental regulation of intrastate commerce. - The execution by Congress of its power to regulate interstate commerce is not limited by fact that intrastate transactions may have become so interwoven therewith that effective control of interstate commerce by Congress incidentally controls intrastate commerce. Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 207 Ga. 675 , 63 S.E.2d 878 (1951).

No sort of trade can be carried on to which this power does not extend. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 348 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 258 (1964).

Authority of the federal government over interstate commerce does not differ in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 348 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 258 (1964).

Determinative test of the exercise of power by Congress under the commerce clause is simply whether the activity sought to be regulated is commerce which concerns more states than one and has a real and substantial relation to the national interest. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 348 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 258 (1964).

Tenth amendment does not operate upon a valid exercise of power delegated to Congress by the commerce clause. United States v. Collier, 478 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1973).

Direct regulation of interstate carriage, including regulation of the persons carrying and their vehicles, is vested in federal government. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

Federal power over interstate waterways. - The power of the United States over its waters capable of use as interstate highways stems from the authority to regulate commerce among the several states delegated to Congress under U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 3. Such power extends to the entire bed of the stream and includes lands below the ordinary high-water mark. Federal jurisdiction over such waters embraces the whole surface of bodies of water subject to tidal action no matter how shallow or obstructed. A common sense view permits no distinction upon the ground of navigability between the shallows and depths of navigable waters. United States v. Lewis, 355 F. Supp. 1132 (S.D. Ga. 1973).

Elimination of racial discrimination. - Congressional power to legislate in furtherance of the elimination of racial discrimination is derived from the thirteenth amendment, the power over interstate commerce, the power under the fourteenth amendment, and the power under the fifteenth amendment. United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc., 474 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 826, 94 S. Ct. 131 , 38 L. Ed. 2 d 59 (1973).

Prohibition of injurious articles. - Congress, following its own conception of public policy concerning restrictions which may appropriately be imposed on interstate commerce, is free to exclude from the commerce articles whose use in the states for which they are destined it may conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals, or welfare, even though the states have not sought to regulate their use. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451 , 85 L. Ed. 609 (1941).

Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., to a county is not an unconstitutional exercise of power under the commerce clause. Prickett v. DeKalb County, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2000).

Congress lacks transcendent legislative authority with regard to labor relations; its authority to prescribe labor-management ordinances derives from its power over interstate commerce. Baldovin v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, 626 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1980).

Requiring disclosure of credit information within congressional power. - A statutory scheme requiring disclosure by creditors of credit information expressed in a uniform manner, as well as disclosure of the actual annual interest rate to the debtor, is within the power granted to Congress under the commerce clause. Thomas v. Myers-Dickson Furn. Co., 479 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1973).

Commerce power is subject to the due process clause of the fifth amendment. United States v. Hawes, 529 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1976).

There is no requirement of national uniformity when Congress exercises its power under the commerce clause. United States v. Hawes, 529 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1976).

Regulations not infringing constitutional prohibition. - Whatever their motive and purpose, regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibition are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the commerce clause. Alewine v. City Council, 505 F. Supp. 880 (S.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 699 F.2d 1060 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1027, 105 S. Ct. 1391 , 84 L. Ed. 2 d 781 (1985).

Federal arson statute authorized. - Federal arson statute (18 U.S.C. § 844(i)) was within the regulatory authority of Congress. United States v. Chowdhury, 118 F.3d 742 (11th Cir. 1997).

Purely intrastate disputes do not fall within the commerce clause and therefore are not subject to the federal Lanham Act's regulation of service marks. Jellibeans, Inc. v. Skating Clubs of Ga., Inc., 716 F.2d 833 (11th Cir. 1983).

Court's jurisdiction invoked by fact business uses service mark in interstate commerce. - The fact that a business uses its service mark in interstate commerce is sufficient to invoke the federal court's jurisdiction. There is no requirement that the business of an infringer be shown to be interstate as well. Jellibeans, Inc. v. Skating Clubs of Ga., Inc., 716 F.2d 833 (11th Cir. 1983).

3. Power of State to Regulate

State law that frustrates or conflicts with lawful objective of federal statute must yield to the federal authority. United States v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Exmrs., 656 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1981).

Mere privilege of engaging in interstate commerce is not derived from the state and cannot be conditioned by a state upon procuring a license or paying a tax. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

General police power and general taxing power are reserved to the state government, and these may usually be exercised without excepting persons and instrumentalities engaged in interstate commerce, provided there is no discrimination against interstate commerce, and provided no direct and unreasonable burden is put upon it. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

State may license or refuse to license, may condition or charge for, the use of its improved roads, when they are turned from their common uses and purposes to the carrier's business, since an interstate carrier has no better right than any other to use the state's improved highways without its consent, or without paying for it. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

Certificate of public convenience and necessity, with a reasonable fee therefor, and an annual license fee for trucks, are legally demandable by state as a nondiscriminatory prerequisite for use of highways for carrier purposes, even though the commerce involved is wholly interstate. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

State statute imposing duty of ordinary care not unreasonable burden. - In absence of action by Congress authorizing particular acts, complained of as negligence, or in prescribing degree of care and diligence to be exercised by railroad company in operating interstate trains at public crossings, it cannot be said that general duty to exercise ordinary care, imposed by law of state upon its citizens generally, constitutes an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce because persons engaged in interstate commerce incidentally come within purview of such general laws. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Benton, 43 Ga. App. 495 , 159 S.E. 717 (1931), rev'd on other grounds, 175 Ga. 491 , 165 S.E. 593 (1932); Powell v. Smith, 70 Ga. App. 754 , 29 S.E.2d 521 (1944).

State has full power and authority to regulate and control business within its jurisdiction, unless such regulations and control conflict with terms of its own or the federal Constitution. Montgomery & Atlanta Freight Lines v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 175 Ga. 826 , 166 S.E. 200 (1932).

Elements of regulation of intrastate and interstate motor carriers. - Use of public highways by private intrastate and interstate motor carriers of goods may be conditioned by the state upon the carrier's obtaining a license, complying with reasonable regulations, paying a reasonable license fee and tax for expenses of highway administration, and maintenance and reconstruction of the highways covered by the license, and upon the filing of an insurance policy as security against injuries from carrier's negligent operations to persons and property other than passengers and property he carries. In the exercise of its right to demand compensation for special highway facilities it has provided, and of its power to regulate use of its highways in the interest of public safety, a state may properly treat motor vehicles as a special class, because of the special damage to the highways and special dangers to the public attending their operation. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 179 Ga. 431 , 176 S.E. 487 (1934), aff'd, 295 U.S. 285, 55 S. Ct. 709 , 79 L. Ed. 1439 (1935).

Law regulating insurance. - Provision of O.C.G.A. § 33-34-3 that motor vehicle insurance policies issued by insurers authorized to transact business in the state are deemed to provide the minimum coverage required by Georgia law when the insured is involved in an accident in Georgia is shielded from attack under the commerce clause by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 267 Ga. 134 , 475 S.E.2d 619 (1996).

Mere existence of power does not deprive states of authority. - The mere existence of congressional power, no conflict with its exercise being shown, does not deprive the states of their authority to safeguard their local interests by legislation which does not directly burden transactions in interstate or foreign commerce. Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441, 57 S. Ct. 842 , 81 L. Ed. 1210 (1937).

Absent congressional legislation on subject, state laws which are not regulations of commerce itself or its instrumentalities are not forbidden even though they affect interstate commerce. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451 , 85 L. Ed. 609 (1941).

Appropriate local regulations adopted primarily to promote safety upon streets of municipality are not obnoxious to commerce clause where the indirect burden upon interstate commerce is not unreasonable. Lowe v. City Council, 45 F. Supp. 143 (S.D. Ga. 1942).

Limitations on local power to regulate. - Local or internal commerce, not affecting other states and with which it is not necessary to interfere for purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government, may be controlled by local authorities; but if a city government may control the commerce that flows through it from outside state by such exactions as make the movement no longer profitable or possible, other states are affected and the general powers of the national government are circumscribed beyond the limits the Constitution allows. Lowe v. City Council, 45 F. Supp. 143 (S.D. Ga. 1942).

Validity of municipal ordinance regarding taxicab owners operating interstate and intrastate. - Provisions of municipal ordinance requiring operators of taxicabs to maintain office, telephone, and attendant on duty at all times within city is void as to taxicab owners residing outside state who are engaged in interstate business, because it conflicts with the commerce clause; but provisions of municipal ordinance dealing with prevention of cruising upon streets, proscribing use of one street, where traffic congests, for more than one block at a time, limiting number of passengers in one automobile, and requiring operator to drive with care and prudence in compliance with police regulations, are not directed at and do not discriminate against those engaged in interstate commerce. Local taxicabs and like vehicles operating intrastate are bound by them. Lowe v. City Council, 45 F. Supp. 143 (S.D. Ga. 1942).

A city ordinance that puts an undue burden on commerce is offensive to U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 3. - Not all burdens upon commerce, but only undue or discriminatory ones, are forbidden. Graves v. City of Gainesville, 78 Ga. App. 186 , 51 S.E.2d 58 (1948).

Barrier to trade with other states. - A state consistently with the commerce clause cannot put a barrier around its borders to bar trade from other states and thus bring to naught the great constitutional purpose of the fathers in giving to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. Graves v. City of Gainesville, 78 Ga. App. 186 , 51 S.E.2d 58 (1948).

The twenty-first amendment removes spirituous liquors and alcohol from protection of commerce clause to the extent necessary to allow the states to adopt and enforce appropriate laws and regulations dealing with the subject, and thus to burden interstate commerce to this extent. Even in the absence of any protection under U.S. Const., amend. 21, the sovereign states in the exercise of their reserved police power may, without offending the commerce clause, adopt and enforce necessary laws and regulations to effectuate their own protection against illegal traffic and trade in such liquors. Atkins v. Manning, 206 Ga. 219 , 56 S.E.2d 260 (1949); Redwine v. Schenley Indus., Inc., 210 Ga. 769 , 83 S.E.2d 16 (1954).

Supremacy of federal power over state regulations burdening interstate commerce. - If interstate and intrastate commerce are served by same instrumentalities of common carrier, and it appears that a state regulation applied directly to intrastate business may in fact burden interstate commerce, such state regulation must yield to the federal power to assure adequate interstate service. Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 207 Ga. 675 , 63 S.E.2d 878 (1951).

State may exercise power of eminent domain although interstate commerce may be indirectly or incidentally involved. Elberton S. Ry. v. State Hwy. Dep't, 211 Ga. 838 , 89 S.E.2d 645 (1955).

State's inherent right to regulate internal commerce. - Although Congress has the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, and while the courts have held that a state cannot impose undue burdens on interstate commerce, a state has an inherent and reserved right to regulate its local, domestic, and internal commerce, even though by so doing it may indirectly or incidentally affect interstate commerce. Elberton S. Ry. v. State Hwy. Dep't, 211 Ga. 838 , 89 S.E.2d 645 (1955); Southern Ry. v. State Hwy. Dep't, 219 Ga. 435 , 134 S.E.2d 12 (1963).

Commerce clause gives exclusive power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and its failure to act on the subject in area of taxation nevertheless requires that interstate commerce shall be free from any direct restrictions or impositions by the states. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 79 S. Ct. 357 , 3 L. Ed. 2 d 421 (1959);(decided under prior law).

Federal law excludes local regulation, even though the latter does no more than supplement the former. Complementary state regulations are as invalid as state regulations which conflict with the federal scheme. Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U.S. 297, 82 S. Ct. 327 , 7 L. Ed. 2 d 299 (1961).

Limitation on state's power of eminent domain where interstate commerce affected. - A state may exercise its power of eminent domain in acquiring necessary rights of way for state-aid roads although interstate commerce may be indirectly or incidentally involved, but a state cannot by an arbitrary, capricious, and unnecessary exercise of its power of eminent domain take and destroy property which a railway company is using for the purpose of carrying on interstate commerce. Southern Ry. v. State Hwy. Dep't, 219 Ga. 435 , 134 S.E.2d 12 (1963).

Power of states as to local concerns. - Commerce clause did not withdraw from the states the power to legislate with respect to their local concerns, even though such legislation may indirectly and incidentally affect interstate commerce and persons engaged in it. Southern Ry. v. Overnite Transp. Co., 223 Ga. 825 , 158 S.E.2d 387 (1967).

Validity of statutes affecting interstate commerce. - State statutes that only relate to or indirectly affect interstate commerce or cover matters not legislated on by Congress are not invalid as interfering with or burdening interstate commerce. Southern Ry. v. Overnite Transp. Co., 223 Ga. 825 , 158 S.E.2d 387 (1967).

Power of state to regulate for public safety. - The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "broad power in the state to protect its inhabitants against perils to health or safety, fraudulent traders, and highway hazards, even by use of measures which bear adversely upon interstate commerce." General GMC Trucks, Inc. v. GMC Truck & Coach Div., 239 Ga. 373 , 237 S.E.2d 194 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 996, 98 S. Ct. 634 , 54 L. Ed. 2 d 491 (1977).

Georgia courts, though broadly construing the police power, have traditionally limited power of state to regulate private business under U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 1. General GMC Trucks, Inc. v. GMC Truck & Coach Div., 239 Ga. 373 , 237 S.E.2d 194 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 996, 98 S. Ct. 634 , 54 L. Ed. 2 d 491 (1977).

Test for validity of statute affecting interstate commerce. - If a statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to putative local benefits. General GMC Trucks, Inc. v. GMC Truck & Coach Div., 239 Ga. 373 , 237 S.E.2d 194 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 996, 98 S. Ct. 634 , 54 L. Ed. 2 d 491 (1977).

State law limiting medical suppliers. - State policy that suppliers of durable medical supplies have a valid business license and an in-state business location or be located within a fifty mile radius of the state boundary was violative of the interstate commerce clause. It discriminated against interstate commerce and was not the least burdensome means of accomplishing its stated purpose: reducing the administrative costs of the Medicaid program and protecting the citizens of Georgia. Nutritional Support Servs. v. Miller, 830 F. Supp. 625 (N.D. Ga. 1993).

Validity of real estate broker licensure requirements. - Real estate broker licensure requirements, which are not uncommonly imposed by the states, generally withstand attack on the basis of the commerce clause; Supreme Court of Georgia does not find Georgia's invalid. Krizan v. Newman & Co., 246 Ga. 214 , 271 S.E.2d 135 (1980).

O.C.G.A. §§ 40-2-111 and 40-2-112 discriminate against interstate commerce because they impose taxes on vehicles registered in certain states which are not imposed on vehicles registered in the State of Georgia. State v. Private Truck Council of Am., Inc., 258 Ga. 531 , 371 S.E.2d 378 (1988).

State licensing requirements unenforceable where review over federal determination conferred thereby. - A state may not enforce licensing requirements that, though valid in the absence of federal regulation, give the state's licensing board a virtual power of review over the federal determination that a person is qualified to perform certain functions. United States v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Exmrs., 656 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1981).

Regulation of taxicabs. - A city ordinance which placed a limit on the number of taxi permits to be issued and which limited the number of certificates of public necessity and convenience to be issued did not violate the commerce clause. Airport Taxi Cab Advisory Comm. v. City of Atlanta, 584 F. Supp. 961 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

One-year Georgia residency requirement for holders of certificates of public necessity and convenience to operate taxicabs in Atlanta, Ga., City Code § 162-57(a)(3) violated the commerce clause because the city did not show that discrimination against non-residents was demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism; there was no relationship between the residency requirement and a valid government interest, and the requirement was economic protectionism which created an artificial barrier to commerce. Atlanta Taxicab Co. Owners Ass'n v. City of Atlanta, 281 Ga. 342 , 638 S.E.2d 307 (2006).

Association of taxicab owners had standing to challenge the constitutionality under the commerce clause of a one-year Georgia residency requirement for holders of certificates of public necessity and convenience (CPNC) to operate taxicabs in Atlanta, Ga., City Code § 162-57(a)(3) because the provision erected an existing impediment to the solicitation and eventual consummation of any sale or lease of a CPNC to a nonresident of Georgia; enforcement of § 162-57(a)(3) against them impacted their right to engage freely in those business activities currently authorized by the CPNCs issued to them under Atlanta, Ga., City Code ch. 162. Atlanta Taxicab Co. Owners Ass'n v. City of Atlanta, 281 Ga. 342 , 638 S.E.2d 307 (2006).

City ordinances which regulated the fares which licensed limousine service companies could charge for trips to and from an airport and prohibited the advertising of any fares that were not in compliance did not violate the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. Executive Town & Country Servs., Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 789 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1986).

Interstate transportation of refuse. - A county's application of O.C.G.A. § 36-1-16 , which restricts transportation of refuse, to prohibit a waste management company from operating a landfill, which was owned by a municipality but located in the county, as a regional landfill, i.e., from receiving waste from outside the county and from outside the state, violated the company's constitutional commerce clause right to engage in interstate commerce without discriminatory intervention. Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 731 F. Supp. 505 (M.D. Ga. 1990), aff'd in part, vacated on other grounds, 939 F.2d 941 (11th Cir. 1991).

County resolution preventing a waste management firm from importing waste of any kind into the county from other counties and other locations violated the commerce clause. Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 939 F.2d 941 (11th Cir. 1991).

O.C.G.A. § 36-1-16 , which permits Georgia counties to require an application for a permit from those who would bring across state or county boundaries garbage, trash, waste, or refuse for the purpose of dumping such at a publicly or privately owned dump, is constitutional. Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 939 F.2d 941 (11th Cir. 1991).

County ordinance regulating the transport of out-of-county waste into the county did not violate the commerce clause on its face. Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 796 F. Supp. 1511 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

Landfill operator with solid waste handling permit was within the "zone of interests" protected by the commerce clause because its ability or inability to operate impacted the flow of interstate commerce. Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 796 F. Supp. 1511 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

That out-of-state generators may be less trustworthy than in-state generators is an insufficient reason to burden interstate commerce in solid waste disposal since a load of in-state waste is no different from a load of out-of-state waste apart from origin. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

The state failed to justify its requirements that one must obtain a special solid waste handling permit prior to engaging in out-of-state waste disposal; that an out-of-state waste handler must submit a waste analysis plan, through which the operator must obtain a representative sample from every load of out-of-state waste received and perform a detailed chemical and physical analysis on the sample; that out-of-state waste be accompanied by a manifest at all times that the waste is in the state of Georgia; that $10.00 per ton be charged as a fee on out-of-state waste; and that the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources be authorized to inspect at random any out-of-state generators that dispose of their waste in Georgia. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

The statutory provisions and the rules that apply to the regulation of out-of-state waste, or "special solid waste," specifically former O.C.G.A. § 12-8-27 and Rule 391-3-4.10, in their entirety, and O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24 and Rule 391-3-4-.02, insofar as they require a permit for the handling of special solid waste, are unconstitutional burdens upon interstate commerce. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992) (decided prior to repeal of § 12-8-27 by Ga. L. 1993, p. 399).

Out-of-county operator had standing to challenge county ordinance on landfills because the ordinance regulated out-of-county waste brought into the county. Mullis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Bibb County, 822 F. Supp. 738 (M.D. Ga. 1993).

Landfill operator whose landfill was permitted as a landfill not regulated by a county ordinance but who had obtained special authorization from the state to accept various other types of waste, some of which was defined by the county ordinance, had standing to challenge the ordinance. Mullis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Bibb County, 822 F. Supp. 738 (M.D. Ga. 1993).

County ordinance treating differently in-county waste from out-of-county waste was subject to strict scrutiny, requiring lower court reconsideration on the issue of facial invalidity. Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 814 F. Supp. 83 (M.D. Ga. 1993).

Discrimination regarding transportation of refuse. - County ordinance regulating waste imported into county was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, since it treated waste coming from outside the county differently from waste originating inside the county, and the county failed to meet its burden of showing that there was some reason, apart from county of origin, to treat out-of-county waste differently from in-county waste. Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 828 F. Supp. 52 (M.D. Ga. 1993), aff'd, 43 F.3d 677 (11th Cir. 1994).

County policy limiting the origin of waste to within 150 miles of the county was violative of the commerce clause, despite the county's assertion that the limitation was necessary to preserve the capacity of its waste facility. The county failed to give any reason why its objectives could not be accomplished without discriminating against other counties. GSW, Inc. v. Long County, 999 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1993).

State law regulating waste treatment facilities. - Statutory provisions regulating the issuance of permits and containing transportation restrictions pertaining to biomedical waste thermal treatment facilities were deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the commerce clause. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis, 887 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

County's one-landfill policy under solid waste management plan. - A county's one-landfill policy under its solid waste management plan was not economic protectionism violative of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, because laws favoring local government could be directed toward any number of legitimate goals unrelated to protectionism; the county had concerns regarding, inter alia, the costs and financing of more than one landfill. R&J Murray, LLC v. Murray County, 282 Ga. 740 , 653 S.E.2d 720 (2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1053, 128 S. Ct. 2476 , 171 L. Ed. 2 d 767 (2008).

Georgia "anti-takeover" statute enjoyed a presumption of validity under the supremacy and interstate commerce clauses, where it could not be established with the required degree of legal certainty that the statute denied hostile tender offers for Georgia corporations a meaningful opportunity to succeed. West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Farley, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 1096 (N.D. Ga. 1989).

4. Power of State to Tax

Validity of tax on imports. - Where commodity imported into state has come to rest and become part of common mass of property in state, a nondiscriminatory tax by state upon it, or upon its sale or use, is valid. Wright v. Fulton County, 169 Ga. 354 , 150 S.E. 262 (1929).

Gasoline imported by distributor from another state but used in conduct of its business loses its interstate character and may be subjected to an excise tax consistently with commerce clause, although it remains in original packages in which it is imported. Wright v. Fulton County, 169 Ga. 354 , 150 S.E. 262 (1929).

Mere privilege of engaging in interstate commerce is not derived from the state and cannot be conditioned by a state upon procuring a license or paying a tax. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

Control of use of improved roads. - The state may license or refuse to license, may condition or charge for, the use of its improved roads, when they are turned from their common uses and purposes to the carrier's business, since interstate carrier has no better right than any other to use the state's improved highways without its consent, or without paying for it. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

Certificate of public convenience and necessity, with a reasonable fee therefor, and an annual license fee for trucks, are legally demandable by state as a nondiscriminatory prerequisite for use of highways for carrier purposes, even though the commerce involved is wholly interstate. Johnson Transf. & Freight Lines v. Perry, 47 F.2d 900 (N.D. Ga. 1931).

Tax on proceeds of interstate commerce. - It is a burden on interstate commerce for a state to tax proceeds of interstate commerce, and a tax by a state upon the gross receipts of goods sold in interstate commerce is a tax on interstate commerce and is contrary to U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl.3. American Mills Co. v. Doyal, 46 Ga. App. 236 , 167 S.E. 312 (1933).

Highway users subject to state regulation. - Highways are public property and users of them, although engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, are subject to regulation by state to ensure safety and convenience and conservation of the highways, and may be required to contribute to their cost and upkeep. Common carriers for hire, who make the highways their place of business, may properly be charged an extra tax for such use. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 179 Ga. 431 , 176 S.E. 487 (1934), aff'd, 295 U.S. 285, 55 S. Ct. 709 , 79 L. Ed. 1439 (1935).

To sustain a charge by the state for the use of or privilege of using its roads for interstate transportation, it must affirmatively appear that the charge is exacted as compensation or to pay the cost of policing its highways. Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Comm'n, 306 U.S. 72, 59 S. Ct. 435 , 83 L. Ed. 495 (1939).

Validity of tax on interstate carriers for highway use. - While state may not tax privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, it may impose upon motor vehicles engaged exclusively in interstate commerce a charge, as compensation for use of public highways, which is a fair contribution to the cost of constructing and maintaining them and of regulating the traffic thereon. As such a tax is a direct burden on interstate commerce, it cannot be sustained unless it appears, in some way, that it is levied only as compensation for use of the highways or to defray the expense of regulating motor traffic. This may be indicated by the nature of the imposition, such as a mileage tax directly proportioned to highway use, by the express allocation of the proceeds of the tax to highway purposes, or otherwise. Where it is shown that the tax is so imposed, it will be sustained, unless the taxpayer shows that it bears no reasonable relation to the privilege of using the highways or is discriminatory; but the mere fact that the tax falls upon one who uses the highway is not enough to give it presumptive validity. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 179 Ga. 431 , 176 S.E. 487 (1934), aff'd, 295 U.S. 285, 55 S. Ct. 709 , 79 L. Ed. 1439 (1935).

Validity of regulation requiring permit and payment of tax from exclusively interstate carriers. - State regulation providing that, before operating over state highways, common motor carrier shall apply for and obtain certificate or permit from state commission and shall pay an extra tax for maintenance and repair of the highways and for administration and enforcement of the laws governing their use, is constitutional though applied to carriers engaged exclusively in interstate commerce. That the tax so exacted is not all used for maintenance and repair of the highways, but some of it for defraying expenses of the commission for administration and enforcement and some for other purposes, is no concern of the taxpayer, it being assessed for a proper purpose and not unreasonable in amount. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 179 Ga. 431 , 176 S.E. 487 (1934), aff'd, 295 U.S. 285, 55 S. Ct. 709 , 79 L. Ed. 1439 (1935).

Validity of tax on corporate income derived from interstate commerce. - Fact that sources of tax imposed on corporation organized under laws of Delaware and domesticated under laws of Georgia incidentally involve interstate commerce transactions in computing the taxable net income of taxpayer does not contravene the commerce clause. Montag Bros. v. State Revenue Comm'n, 50 Ga. App. 660 , 179 S.E. 563 (1935), aff'd, 182 Ga. 568 , 186 S.E. 558 (1936).

Validity of municipal tax on operation of radio broadcasting station. - Business of radio broadcasting of programs, some originating in other states and transmitted to broadcasting station in this state by wire, and others originating locally, to listeners in this state and other states, is interstate commerce, and is of such a nature that the business of broadcasting such programs to listeners in this state cannot be discontinued without withdrawing the broadcasting of such programs from listeners in other states. A municipal tax on privilege of operating or the business of operating a radio broadcasting station of the nature described is invalid as a burden on interstate commerce. City of Atlanta v. Southern Broadcasting Co., 184 Ga. 9 , 190 S.E. 594 (1937).

State has power to tax income of its resident and domestic corporations derived from transactions both within and without state, where there is no discrimination against interstate commerce either in the admeasurement of the tax or in the means adopted for the enforcing of it. State Revenue Comm'n v. Edgar Bros. Co., 185 Ga. 216 , 194 S.E. 505 (1937), appeal dismissed, 303 U.S. 626, 58 S. Ct. 761 , 82 L. Ed. 1088 (1938).

Taxation of income of nonresidents as burden on interstate commerce. - As to nonresidents, income tax may be levied upon income received from property within state, and fact that it may require activities of skill and management outside state to bring the income to fruition does not, by reason of the commerce clause, deprive the taxing state of jurisdiction to tax income which arises within its borders, as to nonresidents doing business in a state and whose business is of a unitary character, a tax may be levied based upon the entire net income, but apportioned to that part of the net income attributable to business done in the taxing state, where the enforcement of such tax is left to the ordinary means of collecting taxes. State Revenue Comm'n v. Edgar Bros. Co., 185 Ga. 216 , 194 S.E. 505 (1937), appeal dismissed, 303 U.S. 626, 58 S. Ct. 761 , 82 L. Ed. 1088 (1938).

Validity of maintenance tax imposed on carriers for use of highways. - Former Code 1933, Ch. 92-29 (see O.C.G.A. Ch. 10, T. 48), which imposes a maintenance tax on the operation of motor buses, trucks, and trailers upon the public roads of this state, in addition to any and all other taxes, licenses, or registration fees required, for the privilege of using the highways of the state, the entire amount of the tax to be allocated for the construction and maintenance of public highways, is not violative of the commerce clause nor does it violate the privileges and immunities clause of U.S. Const., amend. 14. Dixie-Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Comm'n, 186 Ga. 228 , 197 S.E. 887 (1938), aff'd, 306 U.S. 72, 59 S. Ct. 435 , 83 L. Ed. 495 (1939).

It is elementary that state may not impose a tax on privilege of engaging in interstate commerce. Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Comm'n, 306 U.S. 72, 59 S. Ct. 435 , 83 L. Ed. 495 (1939).

Imposition of charge for use of special facilities furnished by state. - If a state at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Comm'n, 306 U.S. 72, 59 S. Ct. 435 , 83 L. Ed. 495 (1939).

Validity of tax on privilege of possessing cigarettes. - Cigarette tax levied not upon the privilege of receiving cigarettes in this state, but rather upon the privilege of retaining, keeping, holding, or possessing them for personal use after they have been received, acquired, or brought into this state, is not violative of the commerce clause. Head v. Cigarette Sales Co., 188 Ga. 452 , 4 S.E.2d 203 (1939).

Excise tax which effects protectionism is invalid. - An excise tax provision whose purpose and effect is simple economic protectionism is virtually per se invalid under the commerce clause. James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. State, 259 Ga. 363 , 382 S.E.2d 95 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, 501 U.S. 529, 111 S. Ct. 2439 , 115 L. Ed. 2 d 481 (1991), aff'd, 263 Ga. 609 , 437 S.E.2d 782 (1993).

Nondiscriminatory ad valorem tax. - Commerce clause does not exempt either tangible or intangible property from nondiscriminatory ad valorem tax by state, nor would it matter that the same intangibles might also be subject to taxation in state of company's domicile. Suttles v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 193 Ga. 495 , 19 S.E.2d 396 (1942), later appeal, 201 Ga. 84 , 38 S.E.2d 786 (1946).

Commerce clause does not exempt either tangible or intangible property from nondiscriminatory ad valorem tax by municipality. Parke, Davis & Co. v. City of Atlanta, 200 Ga. 296 , 36 S.E.2d 773 (1946).

Taxation of domestic corporate income derived from interstate commerce. - A state, in levying a general income tax upon gains and profits of domestic corporation, may include in the computation the net income derived from transactions in interstate commerce without contravening the commerce clause, where there is no discrimination against interstate commerce either in the admeasurement of the tax or in the means adopted for enforcing it. Parke, Davis & Co. v. Cook, 198 Ga. 457 , 31 S.E.2d 728 (1944), appeal dismissed, 323 U.S. 681, 65 S. Ct. 436 , 89 L. Ed. 552 (1945).

Merchant's tax on nonresidents. - State is not precluded by commerce clause from imposing merchant's tax upon nonresident manufacturing corporation which has selected a city of that state as a distributing point, and has secured a local transfer company to take charge of its products when shipped to that point, assort them, store them in warehouse, and make delivery in original packages to customers of manufacturer, either as expressly directed by it, or under general directions in favor of its recognized and approved customers whose names are furnished to transfer company, since, under such circumstances, the goods, when stored in warehouse, are no longer in transit but have reached their destination and are held in the state for sale. Parke, Davis & Co. v. Cook, 198 Ga. 457 , 31 S.E.2d 728 (1944), appeal dismissed, 323 U.S. 681, 65 S. Ct. 436 , 89 L. Ed. 552 (1945).

Taxation of corporate income derived from unsolicited orders from outside state. - Before any part of income received by corporations having property or doing business in state can lawfully escape Georgia tax law, it must appear that such part was derived from property owned or business done outside state. Income derived by corporation from unsolicited orders received by it from outside state cannot, under the fourteenth amendment and the commerce clause, be taxed elsewhere than in state. State v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 214 Ga. 316 , 104 S.E.2d 574 (1958).

Commerce clause gives exclusive power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and its failure to act on the subject in area of taxation nevertheless requires that interstate commerce shall be free from any direct restrictions or impositions by the states. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 79 S. Ct. 357 , 3 L. Ed. 2 d 421 (1959);(decided under prior law).

Tax on net income from interstate commerce, as distinguished from tax on privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, does not conflict with commerce clause. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 79 S. Ct. 357 , 3 L. Ed. 2 d 421 (1959);(decided under prior law).

Former Code 1933, § 92-3101 et seq. (see O.C.G.A. Art. 2, Ch. 7, T. 48) does not offend the due process clause or the commerce clause. Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. Oxford, 216 Ga. 316 , 116 S.E.2d 293 (1960).

Taxation of an airline sale of food places no burden on interstate commerce such as would offend commerce clause if it is merely a tax due to a local transaction, the sale of the meal. Undercofler v. Eastern Air Lines, 221 Ga. 824 , 147 S.E.2d 436 (1966).

No state can tax the privilege of doing interstate business, as that is within the protection of the commerce clause and subject to the power of Congress; but the mere fact that property is used for interstate commerce or has come into owner's possession as a result of interstate commerce does not diminish the protection which he may draw from a state to the upkeep of which he may be asked to bear his fair share. Independent Publishing Co. v. Hawes, 119 Ga. App. 858 , 168 S.E.2d 904 (1969).

No relief from just tax burden. - It is not the purpose of the commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate commerce of their just share of state tax burdens, merely because an incidental or consequential effect of the tax is an increase in the cost of doing the business. Independent Publishing Co. v. Hawes, 119 Ga. App. 858 , 168 S.E.2d 904 (1969); Chattanooga Glass Co. v. Strickland, 244 Ga. 603 , 261 S.E.2d 599 (1979).

Taxation by states of property shipped interstate, before its movement begins or after it ends, is not forbidden by U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 3. Independent Publishing Co. v. Hawes, 119 Ga. App. 858 , 168 S.E.2d 904 (1969).

Validity of use tax on interstate goods at rest. - Things acquired or transported in interstate commerce may be subjected, when once they are at rest, to a nondiscriminatory state tax upon use or enjoyment. Independent Publishing Co. v. Hawes, 119 Ga. App. 858 , 168 S.E.2d 904 (1969).

Test for validity of tax affecting interstate commerce. - A state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if, by the practical operation of a tax, the state has exerted its power in relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society. The sole constitutional test is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return. Independent Publishing Co. v. Hawes, 119 Ga. App. 858 , 168 S.E.2d 904 (1969).

Nondiscriminatory ad valorem property taxes do not interfere with the free flow of imported goods among the states. Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 495 (1976).

Underground storage tanks. - The participation fee provided for in O.C.G.A. § 12-13-10 does not constitute an impermissible burden on interstate commerce, in violation of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, and art. VI. Luke v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 270 Ga. 647 , 513 S.E.2d 728 (1999).

Use tax on personalty at rest not a tax on operators of interstate commerce. - A tax on privilege of using items of tangible personal property after they have come to rest in a state and commerce is at an end, is not a tax on the operators of interstate commerce. Ingalls Iron Works Co. v. Chilivis, 237 Ga. 479 , 228 S.E.2d 866 (1976), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 1081, 97 S. Ct. 1086 , 51 L. Ed. 2 d 528 (1977).

Implementation of hotel/motel tax. - A statute creating special districts for the purpose of implementing a hotel/motel tax did not violate the commerce clause. Youngblood v. State, 259 Ga. 864 , 388 S.E.2d 671 (1990).

To establish that charge levied against interstate carrier imposes an impermissible burden on interstate commerce, the complaining party must show that the charge: (1) discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce; (2) is imposed on the privilege of doing interstate business as distinguished from being imposed for the use of facilities provided by the state; or (3) exceeds fair compensation to the state. Southern Airways, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 428 F. Supp. 1010 (N.D. Ga. 1977).

Amount, rather than formula, of charge determinative of fairness. - In determining whether charges for lease of space at city airport are excessive in comparison with government benefit conferred and hence constitute an impermissible burden on interstate commerce, one must focus on amount of charge rather than its formula. If amount of charge levied on interstate carrier is based on some fair approximation of use or privilege for use, it does not impose an impermissible burden upon interstate commerce. Southern Airways, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 428 F. Supp. 1010 (N.D. Ga. 1977).

Taxation of interstate commerce does not per se violate commerce clause principles. Chattanooga Glass Co. v. Strickland, 244 Ga. 603 , 261 S.E.2d 599 (1979).

Apportionment of property tax. - Since the bus company submitted evidence that some of its buses had acquired a tax situs in a state other than Georgia, the United States Constitution's commerce clause required that Georgia's ad valorem tax on property engaged in interstate commerce, such as the bus company's buses, be apportioned; accordingly, the bus company was entitled to have the ad valorem tax assessed on its bus fleet apportioned. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Harmon Bros. Charter Serv., 261 Ga. App. 534 , 583 S.E.2d 179 (2003).

Coining of Money and Regulation of Legal Tender

Mint has no power to mint coins unless it has been authorized to do so by Congress. Mesaros v. United States, 845 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Requirement that wrecker services accept checks and credit cards does not violate U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII since the regulation does not require a wrecker service to accept something other than legal tender to discharge a debt. Porter v. City of Atlanta, 259 Ga. 526 , 384 S.E.2d 631 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1004, 110 S. Ct. 1297 , 108 L. Ed. 2 d 474 (1990).

A city code section which makes it unlawful for a wrecker service to refuse to accept checks and major credit cards is constitutional, and is not ultra vires the home rule powers conferred by O.C.G.A. § 36-35-6(a) . Upton v. City of Atlanta, 260 Ga. 250 , 392 S.E.2d 244 (1990).

Check backed by lawful money. - Since both Congress and the courts have found federal reserve notes to be legal tender, the court found the check given to homebuyer by a mortgage company was backed by and redeemable in federal reserve notes, coins and lawful money of the United States. Strickland v. A Mtg. Co., 179 Bankr. 979 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995).

Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy power of Congress. - The Constitution of the United States vests authority in Congress to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States, and the power of Congress is paramount in matters relating to this subject. Smith v. Folsom, 190 Ga. 460 , 9 S.E.2d 824 (1949).

Under the bankruptcy power Congress has authority to impair obligation of contracts, but may do so only when property is not, contrary to the fifth amendment, taken without due process of law. In re Philibosian, 19 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Ga. 1937).

The impairment or modification of contract rights under the bankruptcy power granted under clause 4 is not prohibited by the fifth amendment. In re Bullington, 80 Bankr. 590 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987), aff'd, 89 Bankr. 1010 (M.D. Ga. 1988), 878 F.2d 354 (11th Cir. 1989).

Although the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to establish bankruptcy laws, Art. I, Sec. VIII, cl. 4, that power is subject to the fifth amendment, which proscribes taking private property for public use without just compensation. GMAC v. Johnson, 145 Bankr. 108 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 165 Bankr. 524 (S.D. Ga. 1994).

Due process met where noteholder deprived of property through bankruptcy proceedings. - An unsecured note is property whose value rests wholly in the debtor's obligation to pay it and in the right to seize his property to satisfy a judgment on the note. The holder may be deprived of his property by a process of bankruptcy resulting in the bankrupt's discharge without any payment, and due process of law is not lacking. In re Philibosian, 19 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Ga. 1937).

Nullification of rights of secured creditor through bankruptcy. - It is not clear that to deprive a secured creditor of his security through bankruptcy deprives him of property any more than to deprive the unsecured creditor of his debt does, or that the process of bankruptcy is any less a due process of law in the one case than in the other. The true reason why bankruptcy may not nullify a security is not the fifth amendment but the fact that it never has. It lies in the limitations inherent in the bankruptcy power. In re Philibosian, 19 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Ga. 1937).

Delay of realization on security within bankruptcy power. - To delay realization on a security, especially when the security is ample and secured creditor will realize his debt in full or at least the full present value of the security with compensation for the delay, and there are good reasons for the delay, all adjudged by a court, is not unprecedented or unreasonable and is within bankruptcy power. In re Philibosian, 19 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Ga. 1937).

Extent of bankruptcy power. - Although it is true that the exercise of the power to draft laws on the subject of bankruptcies is subject to the strictures of the fifth amendment, the appropriate use of that power by Congress will not be found unconstitutional simply because it upsets previously settled expectations. Joyner v. Golden Dome Inv. Co., 7 Bankr. 596 (M.D. Ga. 1980).

Administration of decedent's estates. - Congress has the power to create bankruptcy jurisdiction over the administration of decedents' estates. Goerg v. Parungao, 844 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034, 109 S. Ct. 850 , 102 L. Ed. 2 d 981 (1989).

That the Bankruptcy Code's definition of "debtor" excludes decedents' estates does not mean that such exclusion applies in the context of a proceeding ancillary to a foreign proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 304. Goerg v. Parungao, 844 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034, 109 S. Ct. 850 , 102 L. Ed. 2 d 981 (1989).

Power to discharge debtor. - The power to establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the country includes the power to discharge the debtor from his contracts and legal liabilities, as well as to distribute his property. Caruthers v. Fleet Fin., Inc., 87 Bankr. 723 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1988).

Power to cure and reinstate accelerated debts. - The Constitution of the United States empowered Congress to establish "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States," and laws enacted by Congress pursuant to this grant of authority are supreme to those of the states. Bankruptcy provisions allowing the opportunity to cure and reinstate accelerated debts and bankruptcy provisions governing the payment of secured creditors' attorney's fees are no exception to the supremacy clause. In re Centre Court Apts., Ltd., 85 Bankr. 651 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1988).

No district or bankruptcy court has any exercisable jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases, matters, or proceedings after December 24, 1982, and a district court cannot confer jurisdiction on a bankruptcy court by adoption of an emergency rule. Williamson v. General Fin. Co., 28 Bankr. 276 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1983).

Bankruptcy judges cannot decide peripheral state common-law claims. - Non-Article III bankruptcy judges cannot constitutionally be vested with jurisdictional power to decide state common-law claims brought pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act and related only peripherally to a bankruptcy case adjudicated under federal law. Pettigrew v. Kutak, Rock & Huie, 30 Bankr. 989 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Patents and Copyrights

Production to which the protection of copyright may be accorded is the property of the author and not of the United States, but the copyright is the creature of federal statutes passed in the exercise of the power vested in Congress by U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 8. Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 52 S. Ct. 546 , 76 L. Ed. 1010 (1932).

Copyrights are not to be deemed instrumentalities of federal government and hence immune from state taxation. The mere fact that a copyright is property derived from a grant by the United States is insufficient to support the claim of exemption from state taxation. Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 52 S. Ct. 546 , 76 L. Ed. 1010 (1932).

Generally, right to copyright works of science and the arts is obtained from Constitution of United States. Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248 , 270 S.E.2d 799 (1980).

United States Congress has preempted field as to statutory copyrights. Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248 , 270 S.E.2d 799 (1980).

Patent rights exist only by virtue of federal statute. Monumental Properties of Ga., Inc. v. Frontier Disposal, Inc., 159 Ga. App. 35 , 282 S.E.2d 660 (1981).

Trademark registration that has achieved incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 is still subject to attack based on functionality. Pudenz v. Littlefuse, Inc., 177 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 1999).

General ideas (theme, plot, etc.) are in public domain and cannot be copyrighted. Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248 , 270 S.E.2d 799 (1980).

In literary works, it is not the novelty but the originality of the wording that is protected by copyright. Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248 , 270 S.E.2d 799 (1980).

Test of pirating, infringement, or literary larceny concerns originality and whether the production is the result of independent labor or copying others. Similarities, historical facts, and incidental details which are necessary to the environment or setting of an action are not material of which copyrightable originality consists. Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248 , 270 S.E.2d 799 (1980).

If access to the work is admitted, then inquiry as to infringement concerns what, if anything, defendant appropriated. Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248 , 270 S.E.2d 799 (1980).

At common law, author has property right in the unpublished manuscript and can obtain redress against anyone who deprives the author of it by infringement or against anyone who obtains a copy and endeavors to realize a profit by its publication through plagiarism or otherwise. Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248 , 270 S.E.2d 799 (1980).

Property right in unpatented product is only exclusive until it becomes property of public by being placed on the market. Monumental Properties of Ga., Inc. v. Frontier Disposal, Inc., 159 Ga. App. 35 , 282 S.E.2d 660 (1981).

Charge on "common law patent" is erroneous statement of law. Monumental Properties of Ga., Inc. v. Frontier Disposal, Inc., 159 Ga. App. 35 , 282 S.E.2d 660 (1981).

Similarity to substantial portion of work is infringement. - Infringement of a copyright may be found where the similarity relates to matter which constitutes a substantial portion of the copyright holder's work - i.e., matter which is of value to the copyright holder. United States v. O'Reilly, 794 F.2d 613 (11th Cir. 1986).

Copyright in a compilation does not prohibit the copying of pre-existing material that is in the compilation. CNN, Inc. v. Video Monitoring Serv. of Am., Inc., 940 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1991), appeal dismissed, 959 F.2d 188 (11th Cir. 1992).

Videotaping and selling news reports. - The enforcement of the copyright statute by a television station against a business which videotaped its news broadcasts and sold the tapes to the subjects of the news reports did not violate the copyright clause. Pacific & S. Co. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004, 105 S. Ct. 1867 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 161 (1985).

Typical television newscast may be copyrightable in its entirety as a compilation only. CNN, Inc. v. Video Monitoring Serv. of Am., Inc., 940 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1991), appeal dismissed, 959 F.2d 188 (11th Cir. 1992).

Fair use of cable television newscasts. - Any injunction that would prevent the copying of a cable television network's newscasts "in any part" would be inconsistent with the federal Copyright Act, particularly its fair use provisions, and both the copyright clause and the first amendment to the Constitution. CNN, Inc. v. Video Monitoring Serv. of Am., Inc., 940 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1991), appeal dismissed, 959 F.2d 188 (11th Cir. 1992).

War-Making Powers

Compensation for military service. - Under the war-making power conferred by Constitution, Congress is empowered to adopt any means which it may deem necessary to contribute to the success of the undertaking. From this it follows that Congress is authorized to grant allotments, bounties, pensions, and other rewards in return for military service, and may prescribe, as a condition upon which this compensation shall be given, a provision that the federal compensation for military service shall be exempt from all taxation, including state taxation. Rucker v. Merck, 172 Ga. 793 , 159 S.E. 501 (1931).

In exercise of its exclusive prerogative to wage war, federal government cannot be interfered with by state legislation. City of Atlanta v. Stokes, 175 Ga. 201 , 165 S.E. 270 (1932).

Even though power of state to tax generally is supreme, that power may not be used to hamper, hinder, annoy, harass, and impede the federal government in the exercise of its unlimited power to carry on war. City of Atlanta v. Stokes, 175 Ga. 201 , 165 S.E. 270 (1932).

Power of Congress to exempt compensation for war veterans from state taxation. - Where Congress enacts legislation declaring that certain compensation for war veterans shall be exempt from all taxation, Congress is acting within its war powers and the exemption applies to state taxation, including taxation of property purchased by veterans with funds declared tax exempt by Congress. City of Atlanta v. Stokes, 175 Ga. 201 , 165 S.E. 270 (1932).

Lack of formal declaration of war by Congress is without legal effect on validity of court martial jurisdiction during such undeclared war. Torres v. Connor, 329 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

Regulation of Armed Forces

Although trial by military tribunal deprives one of trial by jury and other constitutional rights, it is not unconstitutional. Military jurisdiction, however, is restricted to the narrowest limits consistent with the power granted Congress in U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 14. Torres v. Connor, 329 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

Lack of formal declaration of war by Congress is without legal effect on validity of court martial jurisdiction during such undeclared war. Torres v. Connor, 329 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

Only within narrow limits and where first amendment rights are involved will federal courts enjoin state or military prosecution. Torres v. Connor, 329 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 14 is grant of legislative power. - Express authority of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 14 to make rules for government and regulation of land and naval forces is a grant of purely legislative power, and is the prime source of the establishment of the system of military justice. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Exclusive Jurisdiction

Change of domicile by military personnel. - U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 17, properly construed, does not altogether deny a soldier the right enjoyed by others of changing his domicile from one state to another because he is stationed on a government reservation. He should not unnecessarily be thus discriminated against and limited in matters not connected with his status as a soldier. Dicks v. Dicks, 177 Ga. 379 , 170 S.E. 245 (1933).

Exclusive legislation has been construed to mean exclusive jurisdiction in the sense of exclusive sovereignty. Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1952).

Nothing in the Constitution of United States can confer upon Georgia Legislature an iota of power to legislate for Georgia. - This court rejects in toto all argument of counsel that U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 17 imposes or was intended to impose any duty whatever upon any state legislature to act. Its sole intent and meaning are to define the jurisdiction that will result if and when a state legislature by a valid law cedes jurisdiction or consents to purchase. Power does not lie in the federal government to invest the Legislature of Georgia with authority to legislate for this sovereign state, and any attempt to do so, whether by constitutional provision, congressional Act, or judicial decision, would utterly fail. No such attempt has been made by either the Constitution or Congress, and this court does not construe any court decision to constitute such an attempt. IBM Corp. v. Evans, 213 Ga. 333 , 99 S.E.2d 220 (1957).

Surrender of state sovereignty. - U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 17 declares that when cession or consent by a state legislature has been given, exclusive legislative power vests in the United States. This court believes the sounder reasoning to the conclusion would be that no legislature, without express constitutional power, can surrender the state's sovereignty. Therefore, the attempt to surrender it is effective only to the extent of allowing the United States to own and use the land free from state interference by taxes or otherwise. Individuals, however, cannot be given such privileges. IBM Corp. v. Evans, 213 Ga. 333 , 99 S.E.2d 220 (1957).

United States penitentiary is "needful building" within meaning of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 17. Gainey v. United States, 324 F.2d 731 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 842, 83 S. Ct. 1897 , 10 L. Ed. 1062 (1963).

Nature of jurisdiction over lands acquired other than by purchase with state's consent. - Where lands are acquired by the United States within the limits of a state in any way other than by purchase with state's consent, the United States will hold the lands subject to this qualification: that if forts, arsenals, or other public buildings are erected upon such lands for the uses of the federal government, such buildings and their appurtenances, as instrumentalities for the execution of its powers, will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the state as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed. Brittain v. Reid, 220 Ga. 794 , 141 S.E.2d 903 (1965).

Nature of federal possession of land acquired without state's consent. - The federal government may, without consent of the state, acquire land within a state by condemnation or purchase, but without state consent the United States does not obtain the benefits of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 17 and its possession is that of an ordinary proprietor. DeKalb County v. Henry C. Beck Co., 382 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1967).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ANALYSIS

Commerce

Transportation of gambling devices in interstate commerce. - It is illegal under the laws of this state to transport gambling devices within this state in intrastate commerce; however, this state does not attempt to exercise jurisdiction over the transportation of gambling devices in interstate commerce. 1960-61 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 113.

Imposition of state safety inspection standards on interstate busses registered in state. - Any reasonable safety inspection standards which this state might wish to impose upon interstate busses registered in this state would be permissible under U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 3 of this section. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-33.

Use tax on "cost price" does not violate commerce clause. - Imposition of use tax upon "cost price," as defined by paragraph (2) of O.C.G.A. § 48-8-2 , does not violate commerce clause, as it treats taxpayers printing own material out-of-state and taxpayers printing own material within the state equally. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-93.

Exclusive Jurisdiction

.

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 17 gives to Congress the exclusive right of legislation over property or areas within jurisdiction of state where the consent of the legislature of the state is given. 1945-47 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 49.

State authority having power to cede land and jurisdiction to federal government. - The only authority of the state which has power to consent to acquisition of property within state by federal government so as to deprive state of jurisdiction over same is the General Assembly. 1945-47 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 49.

Building safety counsel has no right or duty to inspect: (a) properties of the federal government such as military reservations; or (b) properties, such as war housing projects, owned by the government but leased to private persons for nongovernmental uses. 1948-49 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 394.

Means of acquiring jurisdiction. - Under U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cls. 17 and 18, the United States may gain exclusive jurisdiction over lands acquired within a state either by purchase with the consent of the state legislature or by cession of jurisdiction by the state legislature to the United States and acceptance of the cession by Congress. 1952-53 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 8; 1963-65 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 496.

Validity of reservations of authority by state over ceded or purchased territory. - The state legislature, in its Act consenting to purchase by the United States or ceding jurisdiction to the United States, may reserve such authority over the ceded territory as will not be incompatible with the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction by the United States. Reservations of the right to serve process and to resume full jurisdiction if the United States ceases to own the land are not incompatible with the federal requirements. Regulating public utilities in any ceded territory is not incompatible with U.S. Const., art. I, sec. VIII, cl. 17, and the Act effectively cedes jurisdiction over lands used by the Department of Defense. The reservation of the right to administer the criminal laws of the state over such area or the reservation of civil and criminal jurisdiction over persons and citizens within ceded territory, however, is incompatible with the transfer of exclusive jurisdiction. 1952-53 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 8.

Military bases. - Fort Stewart remains in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and the Juvenile Court of Liberty County does not have jurisdiction over juveniles who have allegedly committed delinquent acts on the military base. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U94-10.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Power of Congress to exclude commodities from transportation in interstate commerce because of the conditions under which they are produced, 3 A.L.R. 658 .

Limitation of time for deportation of alien, 8 A.L.R. 1286 .

Transportation by private means as affecting character of transaction as interstate commerce, 10 A.L.R. 512 .

Power of federal government over intrastate rates, 22 A.L.R. 1100 .

Applicability of state Anti-trust Act to interstate transaction, 24 A.L.R. 787 .

Amusement or educational enterprise as interstate commerce, 26 A.L.R. 359 ; 47 A.L.R. 782 .

Interference with operation of plant producing goods destined for shipment out of state as restraint of trade or commerce among the states within inhibition of Sherman Anti-trust Act, 28 A.L.R. 1015 ; 128 A.L.R. 1075 .

Subsequent dealing, by seller, with property sold conditionally in interstate commerce, as taking it out of the protection of the interstate commerce clause, 30 A.L.R. 417 .

Power of federal authorities to discontinue a branch, wholly within the state, of an interstate railroad or interurban system, 30 A.L.R. 439 .

Power of state to tax debts due from United States under contracts other than loans, 30 A.L.R. 1462 .

Right to inventions as between employer and employee, 32 A.L.R. 1037 ; 44 A.L.R. 593 ; 85 A.L.R. 1512 ; 153 A.L.R. 983 ; 61 A.L.R.2d 356.

Implied promise of employer to pay royalty for use of patented article invented by employee, 32 A.L.R. 1045 .

State regulation of carriers by motor vehicle as affected by interstate commerce clause, 36 A.L.R. 1110 ; 38 A.L.R. 291 ; 47 A.L.R. 230 ; 49 A.L.R. 1203 ; 62 A.L.R. 52 ; 85 A.L.R. 1136 ; 109 A.L.R. 1245 ; 135 A.L.R. 1358 .

Trademark or tradename as asset in case of bankruptcy, insolvency, or assignment for benefit of creditors, 44 A.L.R. 706 .

Statute or ordinance in relation to advertising as interference with interstate commerce, 48 A.L.R. 563 ; 57 A.L.R. 105 ; 115 A.L.R. 952 .

Refusal or failure of consignee to accept goods as terminating interstate shipment, 48 A.L.R. 956 .

License tax or fee on automobiles as affected by interstate commerce clause, 52 A.L.R. 533 ; 115 A.L.R. 1105 .

Power of state to tax royalties from patents, 55 A.L.R. 931 .

Mill-in-transit operations or similar interruptions of movement in interstate commerce as affecting state power of taxation, 60 A.L.R. 398 .

Breaking continuity of passage or shipment as affecting its interstate character, 60 A.L.R. 1465 ; 155 A.L.R. 936 .

Validity and construction of statute creating Federal Trade Commission, 68 A.L.R. 847 ; 79 A.L.R. 1200 .

Constitutionality of statutes relating to grading, packing, or branding of farm products, 73 A.L.R. 1445 .

Rules of federal courts or those of state court as applicable in action for tort against carrier arising out of interstate transportation of persons, 76 A.L.R. 428 .

Constitutionality of statute relating to taxation of state banks or stock therein as affected by inapplicability of statute to national banks or national bank stock, 82 A.L.R. 874 ; 83 A.L.R. 1441 .

Legal aspects of radio communication and broadcasting, 82 A.L.R. 1106 ; 89 A.L.R. 420 ; 104 A.L.R. 872 ; 124 A.L.R. 982 ; 171 A.L.R. 765 .

Requirement of license for practice of medicine or surgery as affected by interstate commerce clause of federal constitution, 82 A.L.R. 1388 .

Attachment or garnishment as interference with foreign or interstate commerce, 85 A.L.R. 1395 .

Governmental powers in peacetime emergency, 86 A.L.R. 1539 ; 88 A.L.R. 1519 ; 96 A.L.R. 312 ; 96 A.L.R. 826 .

State income tax on resident in respect of income earned outside the state, 87 A.L.R. 380 .

Telegraphic or telephonic message between points in same state routed via points out of state as interstate commerce, 87 A.L.R. 1333 .

Conflict of Laws, § 11 -- Judgment, § 374 -- warrant of attorney to confess judgment -- validity and effect, 89 A.L.R. 1495 .

Enumeration in constitutional provision of subjects of tax as exclusive of power of legislature to add other subjects, 100 A.L.R. 859 .

Validity, effect, and enforceability of provision of bonds, coupons, or other obligations of municipal or political body or of statute or ordinance under which they are issued, that they will be accepted in payment of taxes, 100 A.L.R. 1339 .

Constitutionality of statute permitting payment of taxes in instalments, 101 A.L.R. 1335 .

Assumption of jurisdiction by court as violation of commerce clause, 104 A.L.R. 1075 .

State statute or ordinance prohibiting or regulating transportation of intoxicating liquor as interference with interstate commerce, 110 A.L.R. 931 ; 138 A.L.R. 1150 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statutes relating to highway transportation of automobiles for purposes of sale, 110 A.L.R. 622 .

Constitutionality of chain store tax, 112 A.L.R. 305 .

Encouragement or promotion of industry not in nature of public utility, carried on by private enterprise, as public purpose for which tax may be imposed or public money appropriated, 112 A.L.R. 571 .

Applicability of state statutes or municipal regulations to contracts for performance of work on land owned or leased by the Federal Government, 115 A.L.R. 371 ; 127 A.L.R. 827 .

Tax as unlawful discrimination against interstate commerce by reason of possibility of taxation in other states, 117 A.L.R. 444 .

Right of manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler to control resale price, 125 A.L.R. 1335 .

Public regulation of dry cleaning and dyeing establishments, 128 A.L.R. 678 .

State taxation of livestock as affected by federal constitutional or statutory provisions relating to imports, exports, or interstate commerce, 130 A.L.R. 969 .

Adoption by or under authority of state statute without specific enactment or reenactment of prospective federal legislation or federal administrative rules as unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, 133 A.L.R. 401 .

Judicial decisions involving ASCAP, 136 A.L.R. 1438 .

Constitutionality and construction of Emergency Price Control Act as relating to rent, 148 A.L.R. 1403 ; 149 A.L.R. 1467 ; 150 A.L.R. 1462 ; 151 A.L.R. 1465 ; 152 A.L.R. 1462 ; 153 A.L.R. 1434 ; 154 A.L.R. 1460 ; 155 A.L.R. 1461 ; 156 A.L.R. 1459 ; 157 A.L.R. 1457 ; 158 A.L.R. 1464 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of Emergency Price Control Act, 148 A.L.R. 1429 ; 149 A.L.R. 1472 ; 150 A.L.R. 1470 ; 151 A.L.R. 1469 ; 152 A.L.R. 1472 ; 153 A.L.R. 1444 ; 154 A.L.R. 1468 ; 155 A.L.R. 1467 ; 156 A.L.R. 1467 ; 157 A.L.R. 1463 ; 158 A.L.R. 1474 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute or ordinance imposing license fee or tax upon automobiles or trailers used for habitation, 150 A.L.R. 853 .

Selective Training and Service Acts, 150 A.L.R. 1420 ; 151 A.L.R. 1456 ; 152 A.L.R. 1452 ; 153 A.L.R. 1422 ; 154 A.L.R. 1448 ; 155 A.L.R. 1452 ; 156 A.L.R. 1450 ; 157 A.L.R. 1450 ; 158 A.L.R. 1450 .

Collateral business activities incident to, or in aid of, interstate transportation, as related to interstate commerce, 152 A.L.R. 1078 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of federal statute relating to power of national bank to engage in trust business, 153 A.L.R. 410 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of general use tax or other compensating tax designed to complement state sales tax, 153 A.L.R. 609 .

Privilege tax in respect of business involving continuous passage and repassage over state lines of laundry or other articles for use and the return of same or similar articles to user, 153 A.L.R. 830 .

Judicial decisions involving rationing, 153 A.L.R. 1453 ; 155 A.L.R. 1475 ; 156 A.L.R. 1475 ; 157 A.L.R. 1472 ; 158 A.L.R. 1489 .

State tax in connection with transportation or distribution of oil or gas through pipe lines as affected by commerce clause, 154 A.L.R. 623 .

License or excise tax on merchandise brokers or persons performing similar functions as affected by commerce clause, 155 A.L.R. 239 .

Statute or ordinance requiring solicitor to obtain license, imposing tax or fee, as contrary to commerce clause as applied to solicitor of orders for goods to be subsequently shipped in interstate commerce, 162 A.L.R. 857 .

Immunity of state and its agencies from federal taxation as affected by the governmental or nongovernmental character of the particular functions involved, 163 A.L.R. 542 .

Decision of United States Supreme Court that insurance is interstate commerce as affecting state statutes relating to foreign insurance companies, 164 A.L.R. 500 .

Jurisdiction of state court over actions involving patents, 167 A.L.R. 1114 .

Break in transit in interstate commerce as affecting immunity of goods from local taxation, 171 A.L.R. 283 .

State tax on or in respect of goods shipped in interstate commerce to consignee for sale on consignor's account without previous sale or order for purchase, 4 A.L.R.2d 244.

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute respecting sale, assignment, or transfer of retail instalment contracts, 10 A.L.R.2d 447.

Loading or unloading interstate freight in performance of obligation resting upon one other than interstate carrier as interstate commerce as regards local taxation, 10 A.L.R.2d 651.

Subjecting radio broadcasting business to local taxation as burden on commerce, 11 A.L.R.2d 986.

State law or state court decisions as governing, or as rule of decision in federal court, in passing upon question as to what property passes to trustee in bankruptcy under § 70(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, 16 A.L.R.2d 839.

Application and effect of "shop right rule" or license giving employer limited rights in employees' inventions and discoveries, 61 A.L.R.2d 356.

Validity, under Federal Constitution, of state tax on, or measured by, income of foreign corporation, 67 A.L.R.2d 1322.

Apportionment and computation of profits for which copyright infringer is liable, 2 A.L.R.3d 1211.

Prospective assignment of renewal rights in copyright, 2 A.L.R.3d 1403.

What constitutes uttering and passing counterfeit obligation or other security of the United States, with intent to defraud, under 18 USC § 472, 3 A.L.R.3d 1051.

Common-law copyright in the spoken word, 32 A.L.R.3d 618.

Literary property in lectures, 38 A.L.R.3d 779.

Validity of municipal ordinance imposing income tax or license upon nonresident in taxing jurisdiction (commuter tax), 48 A.L.R.3d 343.

Validity, construction, and effect of state franchising statute, 67 A.L.R.3d 1299.

Validity and construction of statute or ordinance requiring return deposits on soft drink or similar containers, 73 A.L.R.3d 1105.

When does statute of limitations begin to run against action for wrongful appropriation of literary property or idea, 79 A.L.R.3d 820.

Validity of state or local regulation dealing with resale of tickets to theatrical or sporting events, 81 A.L.R.3d 655.

Construction, application, and operation of state "retaliatory" statutes imposing special taxes or fees on foreign insurers doing business within the state, 30 A.L.R.4th 873.

Construction and effect of provision of employment contract giving employer right to inventions made by employee, 66 A.L.R.4th 1135.

Workers' compensation: recovery for home service provided by spouse, 67 A.L.R.4th 765.

Validity of state statutes and administrative regulations regulating internet communications under commerce clause and First Amendment of federal constitution, 98 A.L.R.5th 167.

Constitutionality of state bankruptcy-specific exemptions under supremacy clause and bankruptcy clause of U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2 and Art. I, § 8, cl. 4), 77 A.L.R.6th 273.

Determination whether exaction for property development constitutes compensable taking, 8 A.L.R.7th 7.

Award of attorneys' fees pursuant to § 615(e)(4) of the Education of the Handicapped Act (20 USCS § 1415(e)(4), as amended by the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 87 A.L.R. Fed. 500.

Copyright protection for private letters, 87 A.L.R. Fed. 871.

What constitutes a "compilation" subject to copyright protection - modern cases, 88 A.L.R. Fed. 151.

Excuse of omission of copyright notice under 17 USCS § 405, 91 A.L.R. Fed. 336.

Interest on award of damages and profits for federal copyright infringement, 91 A.L.R. Fed. 839.

Burden and sufficiency of proof under "first sale" doctrine in prosecution for copyright infringement, 94 A.L.R. Fed. 101.

Review by federal civil courts of court-martial convictions - modern status, 95 A.L.R. Fed. 472.

Construction and application by U.S. Supreme Court of Necessary and Proper Clause of U.S. Constitution - U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 18, 65 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 161.

Section 9. [Limitations upon Powers of Congress]

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Cross references. - State guarantee of writ of habeas corpus, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XV and Ch. 14, T. 9.

Editor's notes. - U.S. Const., art. I, sec. IX, cl. 1 referred to slave trade and was rendered obsolete by U.S. Const., amend. 13. U.S. Const., art. I, sec. IX, cl. 4 has been modified by U.S. Const., amend. 16.

Law reviews. - For article, "Georgia Water Law: Use and Control Factors," see 19 Ga. B.J. 119 (1956). For article, "The Law of the Land," focusing on the role of the Supreme Court, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 444 (1957). For article, "The Legal Status of the American Communist Party: 1965," see 15 J. of Pub. L. 94 (1966). For article discussing Georgia's habeas corpus statutes in light of federal courts' requirements of exhaustion of state remedies prior to entertaining a habeas petition, see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 29 (1972). For article, "Power, Idealism, and Compromise: The Coordinate Branches and the Writ of Habeas Corpus," see 26 Emory L.J. 149 (1977). For article, "Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930," see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986). For article, "Congress: The Purse, the Purpose, and the Power," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1986). For lecture, "Government, Society, and Anarchy," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 753 (1987). For survey of Eleventh Circuit cases on evidence, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1259 (1988). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990). For article, "Federal and State 'State Action': The Undercritical Embrace of a Hypercriticized Doctrine," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 327 (1990). For annual eleventh circuit survey of constitutional law - civil, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 1075 (1992). For article, "Slavery and Race: New Ideas and Enduring Shibboleths in the Interpretation of the American Constitutional System," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 637 (1993). For article, "Wealth Inequality and Family Businesses," see 65 Emory L.J. 937 (2016). For note, "In Search of the Optimum Writ: A Suggestion for the Improvement of Federal Habeas Corpus," see 22 J. of Pub. L. 465 (1973). For note, "Uncertain Waters: Tennard v. Dretke Provides Swells of Protection for the Mentally Deficient But May Cause Rising Tides of Frivolous Claims," see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 1483 (2005). For note, "Bailing on Bail: The Unconstitutionality of Fixed, Monetary Bail Systems and Their Continued Use Throughout the United States," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 985 (2018). For comment on Winston v. State, 186 Ga. 573 , 198 S.E. 667 (1938), see 1 Ga. B.J. 46 (1939). For comment discussing Rowe v. Peyton, 383 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1967), as to the availability of habeas corpus to test the validity of a sentence to commence in futuro, see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 116 (1967). For comment on Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 (1972), see 24 Mercer L. Rev. 491 (1973). For comment discussing interpretation of ex post facto clause, see 28 Emory L.J. 429 (1979). For comment on revival prosecutions and the ex post facto clauses, see 50 Emory L.J. 397 (2001). Garner v. Jones: Restricting prisoners' ex post facto challenges to changes in parole systems, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 761 (2001).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Cited in Edwards v. Smyly, 170 Ga. 487 , 153 S.E. 184 (1930); Consolidated Utils. Co. v. Commissioner, 84 F.2d 548 (5th Cir. 1936); Williams v. Ragsdale, 209 Ga. 274 , 53 S.E.2d 339 (1949); St. Clair v. Hiatt, 83 F. Supp. 585 (N.D. Ga. 1949); Sinclair v. Hiatt, 86 F. Supp. 828 (N.D. Ga. 1949); Sweeney v. Hiatt, 89 F. Supp. 416 (N.D. Ga. 1949); Compagna v. Hiatt, 100 F. Supp. 74 (N.D. Ga. 1951); Ivy v. Ferguson, 82 Ga. App. 600 , 62 S.E.2d 191 (1950); United States v. Raines, 189 F. Supp. 121 (M.D. Ga. 1960); Bolton v. State, 220 Ga. 632 , 140 S.E.2d 866 (1965); Johnson v. State, 134 Ga. App. 67 , 213 S.E.2d 170 (1975); Bell v. Bell, 237 Ga. 464 , 228 S.E.2d 850 (1976); Centrif Air Mach. Co. v. Chilivis, 239 Ga. 253 , 236 S.E.2d 606 (1977); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 449 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ga. 1978); Joyner v. Golden Dome Inv. Co., 7 Bankr. 596 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1980); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 515 F. Supp. 176 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Soroa-Gonzales v. Civiletti, 515 F. Supp. 1049 (N.D. Ga. 1981); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 673 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1982); Chancey v. State, 256 Ga. 415 , 349 S.E.2d 717 (1986).

Bill of Attainder

Statutory incentive program not bill of attainder. - Federal statutory incentive for physicians to become "participating" Medicare physicians (providing Medicare enrollees with lists of the specialties and phone numbers of participating physicians, more efficient processing of claims and the recognition of increased billing charges to non-Medicare patients in future calculations of participating physicians' "customary" charges) and a statutory enforcement mechanism (civil fines for raising fees and/or barring nonparticipating physicians from treating Medicare patients for a period up to five years) did not constitute a bill of attainder. Whitney v. Heckler, 780 F.2d 963 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 813, 107 S. Ct. 65 , 93 L. Ed. 2 d 23 (1986).

Discovery. - The amended discovery procedure of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. is not a bill of attainder, which refers to legislative imposition of punishment on specific persons or on class of persons without any judicial proceeding. Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783 , 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007).

Removal of county commissioner from office. - Local act, which had the effect of removing a county commissioner from office before the end of the two-year term to which she had been appointed to fill a vacancy left by a deceased commissioner, was a bill of attainder prohibited by both the Georgia and United States Constitutions. Fulton v. Baker, 261 Ga. 710 , 410 S.E.2d 735 (1991).

Local deannexation statute that included the area of the city in which the mayor resided, making the mayor ineligible to hold office, was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it neither singled out the mayor nor punished the mayor as an officeholder. Lee v. City of Villa Rica, 264 Ga. 606 , 449 S.E.2d 295 (1994).

Federal statute on firearm possession constitutional. - Federal statute prohibiting anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing or receiving a firearm did not impose punishment in violation of the bill of attainder clause. National Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1997), aff'd sub nom. Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998).

Habeas Corpus

Nature of writ of habeas corpus. - The great writ of habeas corpus has not been, and could not be, suspended by Congress in the absence of a rebellion or invasion. The great writ is of such antiquity that its origin is unknown, but from its inception as a writ designed to put people in jail rather than to get them out its status has been far from static. It is not subject to argument that the great writ cannot be suspended in times of peace, but the proposition is also undebatable that it ought not to be abused in times of war or peace. The right to the writ has never been absolute. The statute from 1789 until the present has required that for the writ to issue it must be "agreeable to the principles and usages of law." The petition must be in writing and under oath. Martin v. Hiatt, 174 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1949).

Prisoner's right to attack detainer or sentence not yet served. - Prisoners in custody under one sentence may attack a sentence which they have not yet begun to serve. A petitioner held in one state may attack a detainer lodged against him by another state. A petitioner can bring his action attacking his sentence in the court that imposed the sentence. Callahan v. State, 235 Ga. 359 , 219 S.E.2d 717 (1975).

Appointment of counsel for habeas corpus petitioner. - Since habeas corpus is not a criminal proceeding, neither the U.S. Const., amend. 6 nor the Georgia Constitution requires the appointment of counsel for a habeas corpus petitioner. Spencer v. Hopper, 243 Ga. 532 , 255 S.E.2d 1 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 178 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 116 (1979).

Defendant has no right to receive or spend state funds for appointment of experts or investigators in habeas corpus proceedings, including death penalty cases. Spencer v. Hopper, 243 Ga. 532 , 255 S.E.2d 1 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 178 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 116 (1979).

Appropriate remedy for cruel and unusual punishment. - Assuming arguendo that prisoner's allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual punishment, he still would not be entitled to release from prison, the appropriate remedy being to enjoin continuance of any practices or to require correction of any conditions causing him cruel and unusual punishment. Cook v. Hanberry, 596 F.2d 658 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 932, 99 S. Ct. 2866 , 61 L. Ed. 2 d 301 (1979).

Error that deprives defendant of constitutional right, unless waived according to law, may be raised on application for habeas corpus. Rachel v. State, 247 Ga. 130 , 274 S.E.2d 475 (1981).

"Intentional abandonment or withholding" doctrine obtains on a second habeas corpus petition only if petitioner has not previously presented the ground for relief in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Fleming v. Kemp, 794 F.2d 1478 (11th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S. Ct. 1764 , 104 L. Ed. 2 d 200 (1989).

Procedural limitations. - The procedural limitations of O.C.G.A. § 40-13-33(a) and (b) neither suspend the writ of habeas corpus, nor cause a court to dismiss an action for habeas without consideration of the equities presented. Rather, the statute provides that in a narrowly defined class of cases - those in which a petitioner who is not in custody seeks habeas relief from a misdemeanor traffic conviction - the petition for habeas corpus must be filed within 180 days of conviction. As such, it imposes a permissible procedural restriction on a limited group of cases. Earp v. Boylan, 260 Ga. 112 , 390 S.E.2d 577 (1990).

The federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which, inter alia, requires a habeas petitioner to obtain leave from the appellate court before filing a second habeas petition in the district court, constitutes a restraint on abuse of the habeas writ and does not "suspend" the writ in violation of clause 2 of this section. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 116 S. Ct. 2333 , 135 L. Ed. 2 d 827 (1996).

Ex Post Facto Laws

An ex post facto law is a retrospective criminal or penal measure that is disadvantageous to the offender because it may impose greater punishment. United States v. Reed, 924 F.2d 1014 (11th Cir. 1991).

Applicability to penal statutes only. - The ex post facto provision of the federal constitution applies only to penal statutes, and could not reach the Tort Claim's Act's provision for immunity for prison officials for negligence occurring prior to the act's enactment. Datz v. Brinson, 208 Ga. App. 455 , 430 S.E.2d 823 (1993).

Ex post facto laws affect substantive right of accused. - Upon the defendant's constitutional challenge to the retrospective application of three provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, Ga. Laws 2005, p. 20, no reversible error resulted from challenges to the closing arguments and admission of character evidence, as: (1) the former was not distinctly ruled upon by the lower court; and (2) the lower court sustained objections to the admissibility of character evidence, and, thus, the state could not introduce character evidence regarding the defendant's prior criminal convictions; moreover, a change in the number of the defendant's peremptory challenges by the Act did not affect any protected right by the application of the amended version of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-165 , as strikes were procedural and not substantive in nature. Madison v. State, 281 Ga. 640 , 641 S.E.2d 789 (2007).

Law that is merely procedural and does not add to the quantum of punishment cannot violate the ex post facto clause even if it is applied retrospectively. United States v. Reed, 924 F.2d 1014 (11th Cir. 1991).

School contract unaffected by subsequent enactment. - A contract made and indebtedness incurred by county superintendent of schools in 1918, on behalf of county board of education, for school supplies and furnishings, which were placed in schoolhouses of county and put to use by pupils thereof, was prior to enactment of Code 1933, § 32-928 (see O.C.G.A. § 20-2-504 ), and therefore is not void under such provisions, the same not being construed as being applicable to contracts made before its passage. Board of Educ. v. Southern Mich. Nat'l Bank, 184 Ga. 641 , 192 S.E. 382 (1937).

Discovery. - The amended discovery procedure of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. is not an ex post facto law because it affects purely procedural rights and duties. Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783 , 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007).

Ex post facto laws prohibited by state and federal Constitutions refer only to laws which aggravate the crime, increase the punishment, or allow conviction on a lesser or different weight of evidence, and not to those which reduce or mollify the penalty. Barton v. State, 81 Ga. App. 810 , 60 S.E.2d 173 (1950).

Even though a statute, passed after a conviction, uses the conviction as an element of a future offense, this is not an ex post facto law, because the defendant's punishment for the earlier conviction is not increased, since the statute punishes only for a future offense, and that punishment is rationally enhanced by the prior conviction. State v. Dean, 235 Ga. App. 847 , 510 S.E.2d 605 (1998).

Amendment changing retroactive effect of prior amendment. - An amendment which changed the retroactive effect of an earlier amendment to O.C.G.A. § 40-5-67.1 , the implied consent warning law, so that it applied only to stops made after the effective date of the earlier amendment, rather than to cases pending on such date, did not violate federal or state ex post facto constitutional provisions. State v. Martin, 266 Ga. 244 , 466 S.E.2d 216 (1996).

Retroactive operation of county zoning plan. - In passing a comprehensive zoning plan and amending it, whereby properties of parties were classified for use as agricultural residential district, board of county commissioners did so under the police power, and action of board in changing the use classification of defendants' property from agricultural use to that of apartment use does not deny plaintiffs equal protection of law, nor operate retroactively in violation of federal and state constitutional provisions prohibiting passage of ex post facto laws, nor does such action deny plaintiffs equal protection of law in violation of U.S. Const., amend. 14. Morgan v. Thomas, 207 Ga. 660 , 63 S.E.2d 659 (1951).

Validity of zoning ordinance. - Because plaintiff, while proceeding to zone property was pending, filed application to authorize building of filling station, and ordinance was later adopted zoning plaintiff's property for residential purposes, such ordinance was not in violation of the federal and state Constitutions as an ex post facto or retroactive law. Gay v. Mayor of Lyons, 212 Ga. 438 , 93 S.E.2d 352 (1956).

As a general rule, any law is ex post facto which is enacted after offense was committed, and which, in relation to offense or its consequences, alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage. A statute, however, cannot be an ex post facto law if it is apparent that Legislature in enacting the statute did not make criminal an act which was innocent when done; did not aggravate an offense or change the punishment and make it greater than when it was committed; did not alter the rules of evidence and require less or different evidence than the law required at time of commission of offense; and did not deprive the accused of any substantial right or immunity he possessed at time of commission of offense. Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 , answer conformed to, 125 Ga. App. 841 , 189 S.E.2d 696 (1972).

Validity of statute removing prior right. - Although it is the rule that no one has a vested right in a mere mode of procedure, so that a statute merely regulating procedure and leaving untouched all substantial protections with which existing law surrounds the person accused of crime is not within the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, yet a statute is void and ineffective as related to previous offenses if it takes from the accused a substantial right given to the accused by law in force at the time to which guilt relates, and such statute cannot be sustained simply because, in a general sense, it may be said to regulate procedure. Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 , answer conformed to, 125 Ga. App. 841 , 189 S.E.2d 696 (1972).

Effect of amending statute governing dates of terms of court. - Amendment of a statutory provision so as to change the dates of commencement of terms of court was not an ex post facto law as applied to defendant, who was not at any time entitled to discharge and acquittal of the offenses with which the defendant was charged. Aspinwall v. State, 201 Ga. App. 203 , 410 S.E.2d 388 (1991).

In order for statute to violate prohibition against ex post facto laws, it must affect substantive right of accused. An accused does not have a vested right in a mere mode of procedure. Eades v. State, 232 Ga. 735 , 208 S.E.2d 791 (1974).

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-1 did not implicate ex post facto concerns since an inmate could not have had a substantial right to receive probation, and the revocation of an inmate's probation did not inflict a greater punishment than was permitted at the times the offenses were committed; Jones v. State, 260 Ga. App. 401 , 579 S.E.2d 827 (2003), was overruled. Postell v. Humphrey, 278 Ga. 651 , 604 S.E.2d 517 (2004).

Validity of statute altering procedural conduct of criminal trials. - If the changes effected by enactment of a law constitute merely an alteration in conditions deemed necessary for the orderly and just conduct of criminal trials, they do not deprive defendant of any substantial personal right within meaning of constitutional prohibitions of ex post facto laws. Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 , answer conformed to, 125 Ga. App. 841 , 189 S.E.2d 696 (1972).

Statute reducing peremptory strikes. - Retroactive application of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-165 's amended reduction of the number of peremptory strikes from 20 to 12 did not violate ex post facto clause, as number of peremptory challenges is solely matter of procedure. Seats v. State, 210 Ga. App. 74 , 435 S.E.2d 286 (1993).

Jury determination of sentence is not a substantive right coming within proscriptions of ex post facto laws of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. IX, cl. 3. Adkins v. State, 134 Ga. App. 507 , 215 S.E.2d 270 (1975); Mealor v. State, 134 Ga. App. 564 , 215 S.E.2d 272 (1975).

Effect of amending statute to reduce number of peremptory jury challenges. - The application to a criminal defendant of the statutory amendment reducing the number of the defendant's peremptory strikes did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Stargel v. State, 210 Ga. App. 619 , 436 S.E.2d 786 (1993).

Effect of amending statute to reduce number of impaneled jurors. - Application of the 1992 amendment to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-160 requiring the court to have 30, rather than 42, impaneled jurors from which the defense and prosecution may strike jurors did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Shuler v. State, 213 Ga. App. 790 , 446 S.E.2d 225 (1994).

Ex post facto law is one that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action; or that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed. United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1977), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 435 U.S. 904, 98 S. Ct. 1448 , 55 L. Ed. 2 d 494 (1978); Federal Election Comm'n v. Lance, 635 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed, 453 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 3151 , 69 L. Ed. 2 d 999 (1981).

Mail fraud convictions for conduct that started before enactment of the criminal statute and continued after the effective date thereof did not violate the ex post facto clause. United States v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1106, 117 S. Ct. 2483 , 138 L. Ed. 2 d 992 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1014, 118 S. Ct. 598 , 139 L. Ed. 2 d 487 (1997).

Restriction on judicial, as well as legislative, powers. - The ex post facto clause is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature; but the principle on which the clause is based - the notion that persons have a right to fair warning of that conduct which will give rise to criminal penalties - is fundamental to our concept of constitutional liberty. As such, that right is protected against judicial action by the due process clause. An unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law which U.S. Const., art. I, sec. IX, cl. 3 forbids. United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 904, 98 S. Ct. 1448 , 55 L. Ed. 2 d 494 (1978).

Retroactive application of note to sentencing guideline. - A note to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, although it took effect after an alien had been sentenced, did not violate the ex post facto clause because the application note was added to clarify an existing guideline, and such a note does not have the force of law, as does a guideline. Thus, the note did not change the law. United States v. Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159 (11th Cir. 1992).

Habitual violator statute allowing consideration of offenses which occurred before enactment of statute is not ex post facto. - The repetition of the criminal conduct aggravates offender's guilt and justifies heavier penalties when he is again convicted, and the penalty is imposed only for the new crime but is heavier if the offender is a habitual violator. The increased penalty is for the latest crime which is considered to be an aggravated offense because it is repetitive. Cofer v. Crowell, 146 Ga. App. 639 , 247 S.E.2d 152 (1978).

Validity of post-sentence action delaying eligibility for parole. - Although changes in a statute or regulations that are procedural or remedial in nature may apply retroactively, official post-sentence action that delays eligibility for supervised release runs afoul of the ex post facto proscription. United States ex rel. Graham v. United States Parole Comm'n, 629 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1980).

Validity of statute or regulations affecting prisoner's substantive right to parole. - If the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act (18 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) or the regulations promulgated thereunder effectuate only a procedural change in the manner in which the Parole Commission determines prisoner's eligibility for parole, then the statute and the regulations may be applied retroactively; if, however, the statute or the regulations affect prisoner's substantive right to parole eligibility, neither can be so applied retroactively without violating the ex post facto clause. Because parole regulations were amended to provide that after an interim hearing a presumptive release date or the date of a four-year reconsideration hearing shall not be advanced except under clearly exceptional circumstances, case involving petition for habeas corpus and mandamus was remanded for determination of whether the "clearly exceptional circumstances" test affected prisoner's substantive right to parole eligibility in violation of ex post facto clause. United States ex rel. Graham v. United States Parole Comm'n, 629 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1980).

Retroactive change in the method for calculating the tentative parole month. - Retroactive application of Rule 475-3-.05 (2) of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, allowing the board to extend the interval between parole reconsiderations up to a period of eight years for an inmate serving a life sentence, does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. Ray v. Jacobs, 272 Ga. 760 , 534 S.E.2d 418 (2000).

It is not a violation of ex post facto clause for individual to be sentenced to a penalty less harsh than the one it appeared the defendant would be subjected to, and was given notice of, at the moment of the crime. Federal Election Comm'n v. Lance, 617 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1980), appeal dismissed, 453 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 3151 , 69 L. Ed. 2 d 999 (1980).

Application of the 1984 amendment to Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, restricting expert testimony as to the legal insanity of the accused, to a case involving offenses occurring prior to the effective date of the amendment, did not violate equal protection nor the ex post facto clause. United States v. Alexander, 805 F.2d 1458 (11th Cir. 1986).

Enhanced sentencing statute for DUI. - Defendant who committed a DUI offense on November 11, 1990, was improperly subjected to the enhanced sentencing provisions contained in O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(c)(3)(A), which did not become effective until January 1, 1991. Holtapp v. City of Fayetteville, 208 Ga. App. 606 , 431 S.E.2d 403 (1993).

Election of application of ex post facto law. - Application of the life-without-parole statute to defendant did not violate ex post facto prohibitions where the defendant expressly elected the application, and the statute did not establish a greater penalty or alter the situation to the defendant's disadvantage. Brantley v. State, 268 Ga. 151 , 486 S.E.2d 169 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 985, 118 S. Ct. 449 , 139 L. Ed. 2 d 384 (1997).

Improper sentence when pre-amendment version of sexual battery statute cited. - Defendant's sentence to five years imprisonment pursuant to the amended version of O.C.G.A. § 16-6-22.1 , with regard to defendant's conviction for sexual battery against a child under the age of 16 years, without specific jury finding that conduct for which defendant was convicted occurred after the amendment, was erroneous and required defendant's sentence to be vacated and remanded to the trial court for resentencing; trial court should have required special verdict form that addressed both defendant's pre-amendment and post-amendment conduct to avoid a potential ex post facto violation. Forde v. State, 289 Ga. App. 805 , 658 S.E.2d 410 (2008).

Firearm prohibition based on criminal activity. - Federal statute prohibiting anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing or receiving a firearm did not violate the ex post facto clause. National Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1997), aff'd sub nom. Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998).

Amendment of forcible rape statute meant indictment within statute of limitations. - With regard to a defendant's conviction for forcible rape of the defendant's child during the time the child was 13 through 15 years of age, the trial court correctly concluded that the state had 15 years from the victim's 16th birthday on January 12, 1995, or until January 12, 2010, to prosecute the case noting the extension of the statute of limitation to 15 years as to forcible rape by the 1996 amendment to O.C.G.A. § 17-3-1 ; therefore, no ex post facto violation occurred since the indictment was filed on January 8, 2008. Duke v. State, 298 Ga. App. 719 , 681 S.E.2d 174 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1866, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 31 (Ga. 2010).

Appropriations

Federal Department of Health and Human Services could not be compelled to pay federal funds contrary to the Hyde Amendment. - Congressional funding restrictions directing that no federal funds appropriated to pay the federal share of the Medicaid program were to be used to finance certain abortions - to reimburse the state for funds it expended for medically necessary abortions performed during the period when it was required to fund such abortions pursuant to court order, under the mistaken rationale that the state was liable, under federal law, to fund such abortions even absent federal financial participation. Georgia ex rel. Dep't of Medical Assistance v. Heckler, 768 F.2d 1293 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1059, 106 S. Ct. 803 , 88 L. Ed. 2 d 779 (1986).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Determination of existence of process of exportation. - Under decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the federal Constitution gives tax immunity to the process of exportation; this process begins at that point where there is a manifest certainty that the destination of the goods is a foreign country. This certainty is established when the goods are delivered to a common carrier consigned to a destination abroad even though title may pass in this state; in a proper case this certainty may exist when the purchaser takes actual delivery in this state. 1960-61 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 552.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Constitutional or statutory changes affecting grand jury or substituting information for indictment as an ex post facto law, 53 A.L.R. 716 .

Effect of statutory change of penalty or punishment after conviction, 55 A.L.R. 443 .

Constitutionality of retroactive statute curing defect in private instrument purporting to convey title or create interest in property or as to filing or recording thereof, 57 A.L.R. 1197 .

Constitutionality and construction of statute enhancing penalty for second or subsequent offense, 82 A.L.R. 345 ; 116 A.L.R. 209 ; 132 A.L.R. 91 ; 139 A.L.R. 673 .

Retrospective operation of statutes relating to alimony or suit money in divorce, 97 A.L.R. 1188 .

Constitutionality of retroactive statute imposing excise, license, or privilege tax, 146 A.L.R. 1011 .

Constitutionality of retrospective statutes as regards chattel mortgages, 146 A.L.R. 1100 .

Retroactive application, to previous sales, of statutes reducing period of redemption from tax sales, as unconstitutional impairment of contract obligations, 147 A.L.R. 1123 .

Retrospective statute subjecting interests of trust beneficiaries to claims of creditors, 151 A.L.R. 1417 .

Constitutionality of retroactive statute limiting time for duration or enforcement of existing mortgage, or other real estate lien, or ground rent, 158 A.L.R. 1043 .

Effect, as to prior offenses, of amendment increasing punishment for crime, 167 A.L.R. 845 .

Power to abolish or discontinue office, 172 A.L.R. 1366 .

Retrospective operation of criminal negligence statute, 14 A.L.R.2d 726.

Retrospective operation of legislation affecting estates by the entireties, 27 A.L.R.2d 868.

Retroactive effect of statute fixing minimum value of corporate stock shares or otherwise affecting power of corporation to change par value of existing shares, 54 A.L.R.2d 1289.

Effect of simultaneous repeal and re-enactment of all, or part, of legislative Act, 77 A.L.R.2d 336.

Retroactive effect of statute which imposes, removes, or changes a monetary limitation of recovery for personal injury or death, 98 A.L.R.2d 1105.

Retrospective application of state statute substituting rule of comparative negligence for that of contributory negligence, 37 A.L.R.3d 1438.

Retroactive effect of zoning regulation, in absence of saving clause, on validly issued building permit, 49 A.L.R.3d 13.

Zoning provisions protecting land owner who applies for or received building permit prior to change in zoning, 49 A.L.R.3d 1150.

Validity and construction of state or local regulation prohibiting the erection or maintenance of advertising structures within a specified distance of street or highway, 81 A.L.R.3d 564.

Validity of statutory classifications based on population - tax statutes, 98 A.L.R.3d 1083.

Validity, construction, and application of § 504 of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (29 USCS § 504), precluding certain convicted persons from serving in union office for specified period, 98 A.L.R. Fed. 481.

Construction and application of U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, proscribing federal bills of attainder, 62 A.L.R. 6 th 517.

Section 10. [Restrictions upon Powers of States]

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Cross references. - Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, or laws which impair the obligations of contracts, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. X and § 1-3-5 .

Authorization for state militia, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Para. II.

Contracts declared unenforceable at law, §§ 13-8-1 , 13-8-2 .

Cooperation with other states generally, Ch. 6, T. 28.

Law reviews. - For article, "Constitutionality of Economic Regulations," see 2 J. of Pub. L. 98 (1953). For article discussing Georgia alimony provisions allowing modification of judgments with respect to federal and state constitutional limitations, see 18 Ga. B.J. 153 (1955). For article, "Patterns of Social Legislation: Reflections on the Welfare State," see 6 J. of Pub. L. 3 (1957). For article, "The Subject-Matter Limitation Upon the Treaty-Making Power," see 11 J. of Pub. L. 122 (1962). For article, "Consolidation by Compact: A Remedy for Preemption of State Food and Drug Laws," see 14 J. of Pub. L. 276 (1965). For article discussing the constitutional parameters of state efforts to stimulate international trade, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 391 (1976). For article, "The Development of Nonprofit Corporation Law and an Agenda for Reform," see 34 Emory L.J. 617 (1985). For article, "Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987). For article, "Metaphor and Paradox," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 1053 (1989). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990). For article, "Federal and State 'State Action': The Undercritical Embrace of a Hypercriticized Doctrine," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 327 (1990). For annual eleventh circuit survey of constitutional law - civil, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 1075 (1992). For article, "Of Rocks and Hard Places: The Value of Risk Choice," see 42 Emory L.J. 1 (1993). For survey of 1995 Eleventh Circuit cases on constitutional civil law, see 47 Mercer L. Rev. 745 (1996). For article, "Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2013: Article: Federal Sentencing Guidelines," see 65 Emory L. J. 971 (2014). For article, "The Nature of Family, The Family of Nature: The Surprising Liberal Defense of the Traditional Family in the Enlightment," see 64 Emory L.J. 591 (2014). For article, "Protecting States in the New World of Energy Federalism," see 67 Emory L.J. 921 (2018). For annual survey on the federal sentencing guidelines, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 1181 (2018). For note, "Annexation by Municipalities in Georgia," see 2 Mercer L. Rev. 423 (1951). For note, "Lapse or Continuation of Local Constitutional Amendments Under the Constitution of 1983," see 21 Ga. St. B.J. 78 (1984). For note, "Water Wars in the Southeast: Alabama, Florida, and Georgia Square Off Over the Apalachicola Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 689 (1993). For comment on Watson v. Employer's Liab. Assurance Corp., 348 U.S. 66, 75 S. Ct. 166 , 99 L. Ed. 74 (1954), holding that a statute allowing a direct action by the policy holder against the insurer contrary to the terms of the contract and requiring the consent of the insurer to such action as a prerequisite of doing business in the state was not violative of the Constitution, see 17 Ga. B.J. 529 (1955). For comment discussing state intervention in contracts between private parties, under the contract clause, in light of Willys Motors v. Northwest Kaiser-Willys, 142 F. Supp. 469 (D. Minn. 1956), see 6 J. of Pub. L. 250 (1957). For comment on Sanders v. Harper, 220 Ga. 649 , 141 S.E.2d 156 (1965), see 17 Mercer L. Rev. 311 (1965). For comment on Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 495 (1976), see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 1237 (1976). For comment discussing interpretation of ex post facto clause, see 28 Emory L.J. 429 (1979). For comment, "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis," see 36 Emory L.J. 285 (1987).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Interstate Agreement on Detainers is congressionally sanctioned interstate compact within the context of the compact clause of the United States Constitution. The agreement is, thus, considered a law of the United States. Seymore v. Alabama, 846 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018, 109 S. Ct. 816 , 102 L. Ed. 2 d 806 (1989).

Cited in Meyers v. Whittle, 171 Ga. 509 , 156 S.E. 120 (1930); Perkins v. Mayor of Madison, 175 Ga. 714 , 165 S.E. 811 (1932); Trotzier v. McElroy, 182 Ga. 719 , 186 S.E. 817 (1936); Hollis v. Jones, 184 Ga. 273 , 191 S.E. 127 (1937); West v. Trotzier, 185 Ga. 794 , 196 S.E. 902 (1938); Campbell v. Red Bud Consol. Sch. Dist., 186 Ga. 541 , 198 S.E. 225 (1938); Cooper Co. v. State, 187 Ga. 497 , 1 S.E.2d 436 (1939); Salter v. Bank of Commerce, 189 Ga. 328 , 6 S.E.2d 290 (1939); National Sur. Corp. v. Gatlin, 192 Ga. 293 , 15 S.E.2d 180 (1941); FDIC v. Beasley, 193 Ga. 727 , 20 S.E.2d 23 (1942); Thompson v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 200 Ga. 856 , 38 S.E.2d 774 (1946); Mayor of Savannah v. Savannah Distrib. Co., 202 Ga. 559 , 43 S.E.2d 704 (1947); Co-Op Cab Co. v. Settle, 171 F.2d 40 (5th Cir. 1948); South W.R.R. v. Benton, 206 Ga. 770 , 58 S.E.2d 905 (1950); Bender v. Anglin, 207 Ga. 108 , 60 S.E.2d 756 (1950); Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U.S. 299, 72 S. Ct. 321 , 96 L. Ed. 335 (1952); City of Atlanta v. Anglin, 209 Ga. 170 , 71 S.E.2d 419 (1952); MacNeill v. Fulton County, 210 Ga. 119 , 78 S.E.2d 40 (1953); Crawford v. Irwin, 211 Ga. 241 , 85 S.E.2d 8 (1954); Harper v. City Council, 212 Ga. 605 , 94 S.E.2d 690 (1956); Southern Ry. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 218 Ga. 157 , 127 S.E.2d 12 (1962); Stephenson v. State, 219 Ga. 652 , 135 S.E.2d 380 (1964); Henson v. Georgia Indus. Realty Co., 220 Ga. 857 , 142 S.E.2d 219 (1965); Webb v. Whitley, 221 Ga. 618 , 146 S.E.2d 722 (1966); Moore v. Moore, 225 Ga. 340 , 168 S.E.2d 318 (1969); Bugden v. Bugden, 225 Ga. 413 , 169 S.E.2d 337 (1969); Stith v. Hudson, 226 Ga. 364 , 174 S.E.2d 892 (1970); Stith v. Hudson, 231 Ga. 520 , 202 S.E.2d 392 (1973); Centrif Air Mach. Co. v. Chilivis, 239 Ga. 253 , 236 S.E.2d 606 (1977); Georgia Franchise Practices Comm'n v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 240 Ga. 743 , 242 S.E.2d 69 (1978); Stith v. Morris, 241 Ga. 247 , 244 S.E.2d 817 (1978); Newsome v. Richmond County, 246 Ga. 300 , 271 S.E.2d 203 (1980); Stinchcomb v. Clayton County Water Auth., 177 Ga. App. 558 , 340 S.E.2d 217 (1986); Baldwin v. Ledbetter, 647 F. Supp. 623 (N.D. Ga. 1986).

Ex Post Facto Laws
1. Civil

Validity of statute affecting or changing remedy only. - Statute which changes or affects remedy only and does not destroy or impair vested rights is not unconstitutional as impairing obligation of contract, although it may be retroactive and although, in changing or modifying the remedy, the rights of the parties may be incidentally affected. Morris v. Interstate Bond Co., 180 Ga. 689 , 180 S.E. 819 (1935).

Validity of statute eliminating disability payments. - Former Code 1933, § 78-911 (see O.C.G.A. § 47-17-81 ), which eliminated, under certain conditions, payment for permanent or total disability, did not violate constitutional provisions providing that no ex post facto law, retroactive law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed, because in passing former Code 1933, § 78-917 (see O.C.G.A. § 47-17-101 ) the legislature specifically provided that all rights and benefits conferred would be subject to future legislative change or revision, and that no beneficiary would be deemed to have any vested right to any annuities or benefits provided therein. Prichard v. Board of Comm'rs of Peace Officers Annuity & Benefit Fund, 211 Ga. 57 , 84 S.E.2d 26 (1954).

Validity of zoning ordinance. - Because plaintiff, while proceeding to zone property was pending, filed application to authorize building of filling station, and ordinance was later adopted zoning plaintiff's property for residential purposes, such ordinance was not in violation of the federal and state Constitutions as an ex post facto or retroactive law. Gay v. Mayor of Lyons, 212 Ga. 438 , 93 S.E.2d 352 (1956).

Statute is retroactive if it creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations already past, or destroys or impairs vested rights. - A statute does not operate retrospectively because it relates to antecedent facts, but if it is intended to affect transactions which occurred or rights which accrued before it became operative and ascribes to them essentially different effects, in view of the law at the time of their occurrence, it is retroactive in character. Todd v. Morgan, 215 Ga. 220 , 109 S.E.2d 803 (1959); Adams v. Adams, 219 Ga. 633 , 135 S.E.2d 428 (1964).

Validity of statute destroying vested right to property. - Former Code 1933, § 67-1308 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-14-80 ), providing that title to real property conveyed to secure debt should revert to grantor when debt became 20 years past due, unless debt was extended or renewed and such renewal recorded, or an affidavit setting out the facts of renewal was recorded with the conveyance, which section imposed conditions upon grantee not in existence at time of execution of the contract, divested the grantee of a vested right to the property, and impaired the obligation of the contract as applied to such deed, which was executed prior to passage and effective date of the Act, is unconstitutional, because in violation of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X, cl. 1 and of Ga. Const. 1945, Art. I, Sec. III, Para. II, (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. X), which prohibited this state from passing any retroactive law or any law impairing the obligations of contracts. Todd v. Morgan, 215 Ga. 220 , 109 S.E.2d 803 (1959).

Validity of statute requiring occupation tax payment pending license application. - It is competent for the legislature to enact that a person entering upon business or occupation upon which a tax provided in ordinance has been imposed, by the terms thereof, should pay the amount of the tax named for the year, or for any period of time within the year, during which the person should choose to apply for a license. Pharr Rd. Inv. Co. v. City of Atlanta, 224 Ga. 752 , 164 S.E.2d 803 (1968).

2. Criminal

Phrase "ex post facto" applies to criminal, not civil, cases. Hayes v. Howell, 251 Ga. 580 , 308 S.E.2d 170 (1983).

Passing on validity of constitutional amendment not affecting petitioner's rights. - In habeas corpus proceeding based on alleged invalidity of constitutional amendment placing power of granting pardons and paroles in Board of Pardons and Paroles rather than Governor, court would not pass on constitutionality of amendment, since even if it were unconstitutional the prior provision would be in effect, and petitioner would not be entitled to discharge. Court will not pass on constitutionality of law when it is challenged by party whose rights are not affected by it. Whittle v. Jones, 198 Ga. 538 , 32 S.E.2d 94 (1944), appeal dismissed, 324 U.S. 829, 65 S. Ct. 915 , 89 L. Ed. 1396 (1945).

Avoidance of construction rendering amendment void as ex post facto law. - Because a constitutional amendment placing power to grant pardons in Board of Pardons and Paroles instead of Governor was silent as to whether it applied to persons previously convicted, amendment would not be given retroactive operation as to those persons if such construction would render amendment void as an ex post facto law. Whittle v. Jones, 198 Ga. 538 , 32 S.E.2d 94 (1944), appeal dismissed, 324 U.S. 829, 65 S. Ct. 915 , 89 L. Ed. 1396 (1945).

As a general rule, any law is ex post facto which is enacted after offense was committed, and which, in relation to offense or its consequences, alters the situation of the accused to the accused's disadvantage. A statute, however, cannot be an ex post facto law if it is apparent that legislature in enacting the statute did not make criminal an act which was innocent when done; did not aggravate an offense or change the punishment and make it greater than when it was committed; did not alter the rules of evidence and require less or different evidence than the law required at time of commission of offense; and did not deprive the accused of any substantial right or immunity that the accused possessed at the time of commission of the offense. Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 , answer conformed to, 125 Ga. App. 841 , 189 S.E.2d 696 (1972).

Delayed effective date of statute. - The application of 21 U.S.C. § 862 to deny defendant federal benefits did not violate the Constitution's ex post facto clause; although the statute applied only to persons convicted of conspiracy after September 1, 1989, it was enacted on November 18, 1988, during the course of the conspiracy, and thus defendant had adequate notice of the penalty. United States v. Bush, 28 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 1994).

Validity of statute removing prior right. - Although it is the rule that no one has a vested right in a mere mode of procedure, so that a statute merely regulating procedure and leaving untouched all substantial protections with which existing law surrounds the person accused of crime is not within the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, yet a statute is void and ineffective as related to previous offenses if it takes from the accused a substantial right given to the accused by law in force at the time to which guilt relates, and such statute cannot be sustained simply because, in a general sense, it may be said to regulate procedure. Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 , answer conformed to, 125 Ga. App. 841 , 189 S.E.2d 696 (1972).

Validity of statute altering procedural conduct of criminal trials. - Because the changes effected by enactment of a law constitute merely an alteration in conditions deemed necessary for the orderly and just conduct of criminal trials, they do not deprive defendant of any substantial personal right within meaning of constitutional prohibitions of ex post facto laws. Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 , answer conformed to, 125 Ga. App. 841 , 189 S.E.2d 696 (1972).

To invoke protection of ex post facto clause, appellant must show harm by showing trial court's decision would have been different had it been rendered before the decision in question. Alexander v. State, 139 Ga. App. 338 , 228 S.E.2d 364 (1976).

Ex post facto law is one that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action; or that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed. United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 904, 98 S. Ct. 1448 , 55 L. Ed. 2 d 494 (1978).

Restriction on judicial, as well as legislative, powers. - The ex post facto clause is a limitation upon the powers of the legislature; but the principle on which the clause is based - the notion that persons have a right to fair warning of that conduct which will give rise to criminal penalties - is fundamental to our concept of constitutional liberty. As such, that right is protected against judicial action by the due process clause. An unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law which U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X, cl. 1 forbids. United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 904, 98 S. Ct. 1448 , 55 L. Ed. 2 d 494 (1978).

Validity of laws not affecting legal protections of accused. - The prescribing of different modes of procedure and the abolition of courts and creation of new ones, leaving untouched all the substantial protections with which the existing law surrounds the person accused of crime, are not considered within the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. McSears v. State, 247 Ga. 48 , 273 S.E.2d 847 (1981).

After commission of offense, a reduction in size of jury is prohibited as an ex post facto law. McSears v. State, 247 Ga. 48 , 273 S.E.2d 847 (1981).

Effect of amending statute to reduce number of peremptory jury challenges. - The application to a criminal defendant of the statutory amendment reducing the number of the defendant's peremptory strikes did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Stargel v. State, 210 Ga. App. 619 , 436 S.E.2d 786 (1993).

Effect of amending statute to reduce number of impaneled jurors. - Application of the 1992 amendment to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-160 requiring the court to have 30, rather than 42, impaneled jurors from which the defense and prosecution may strike jurors did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Shuler v. State, 213 Ga. App. 790 , 446 S.E.2d 225 (1994).

An increase in child support did not violate the ex post facto clause as applied to a defendant originally convicted of abandonment of the defendant's children and whose sentence was suspended upon condition that he pay a certain amount of child support per month, since the child support obligation was a pre-existing duty under state law and was neither a part of the sentence nor a punishment. Hudson v. Deyton, 770 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1985).

Rules of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles are "laws" within the meaning of the ex post facto clause. Akins v. Snow, 922 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir.), aff'd, 987 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1260, 111 S. Ct. 2915 , 115 L. Ed. 2 d 1079 (1991), aff'd, 987 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1993).

Elimination of an annual parole reconsideration hearing violated the ex post facto clause because the amendment of rules that had required an annual hearing to provide instead for a hearing at least every eight years substantially disadvantaged a prisoner's parole eligibility. Akins v. Snow, 922 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir.), aff'd, 987 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1260, 111 S. Ct. 2915 , 115 L. Ed. 2 d 1079 (1991), aff'd, 987 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1993).

Retroactive change in the method for calculating the tentative parole month of certain crime severity level offenders under the parole decision guidelines did not violate the ex post facto clause because the change did not produce a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes. Jones v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 59 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 1995).

The retroactive application of amendments to the Georgia regulations governing parole consideration, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 475-3-.05.(2) (1986), violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. Jones v. Garner, 164 F.3d 589 (11th Cir. 1999).

The retroactive application of amendments to the Georgia regulations changing the frequency of parole reviews, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 475-3-.05.(2) (1986), does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 120 S. Ct. 1362 , 146 L. Ed. 2 d 236 (2000).

Analysis of claims that amendments to Georgia regulations eliminating annual parole reconsideration hearings violates the ex post facto clause when applied to inmates who had been entitled to more frequent parole reconsideration at the time they committed their crimes must be made on a case-by-case basis. Harris v. Hammonds, 217 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2000).

Enhanced sentencing statute for DUI. - Defendant who committed a DUI offense on November 11, 1990, was improperly subjected to the enhanced sentencing provisions contained in O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(c)(3)(A), which did not become effective until January 1, 1991. Holtapp v. City of Fayetteville, 208 Ga. App. 606 , 431 S.E.2d 403 (1993).

Election of application of ex post facto law. - Application of the life-without-parole statute to defendant did not violate ex post facto prohibitions where the defendant expressly elected the application, and the statute did not establish a greater penalty or alter the situation to the defendant's disadvantage. Brantley v. State, 268 Ga. 151 , 486 S.E.2d 169 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 985, 118 S. Ct. 449 , 139 L. Ed. 2 d 384 (1997).

Requirement to renew registration as sex offender not ex post facto. - Defendant's conviction for violating O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12(e)(3) as a result of failing to renew the defendant's registration as a sex offender was upheld on appeal as the requirement to register as a sexual offender under § 42-1-12(e)(3) resulted in a new crime under § 42-1-12(n) and was not an ex post facto law. Frazier v. State, 284 Ga. 638 , 668 S.E.2d 646 (2008).

Impairment of Contracts

Legislature can impose upon county into which another county is merged the burden of performing the contracts and paying the debts of the merged county; an Act so providing for the performance of the contracts and payment of the debts of the merged county does not in any way impair the obligation of the contracts of the merged county in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870 , 162 S.E. 113 (1931).

Freedom of contract is a qualified and not an absolute right; there is no absolute freedom to contract as one chooses; liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint - not immunity from reasonable regulations. City of Newnan v. Atlanta Laundries, Inc., 174 Ga. 99 , 162 S.E. 497 , appeal dismissed, 286 U.S. 526, 52 S. Ct. 495 , 76 L. Ed. 1269 (1932).

Contracts between individuals or corporations are impaired within the meaning of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X, cl. 1 whenever the right to enforce them by legal process is taken away or materially lessened. A different rule prevails in respect to contracts of sovereigns. Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 54 S. Ct. 840 , 78 L. Ed. 1434 (1934).

Validity of statute affecting or changing remedy only. - Statute that changes or affects a remedy only and does not destroy or impair vested rights is not unconstitutional as impairing obligation of contract, although it may be retroactive and although, in changing or modifying the remedy, the rights of the parties may be incidentally affected. Morris v. Interstate Bond Co., 180 Ga. 689 , 180 S.E. 819 (1935).

Contract between the state and an individual is protected by this constitutional prohibition. Morris v. Interstate Bond Co., 180 Ga. 689 , 180 S.E. 819 (1935).

Lien once acquired under existing law is regarded as a vested property right which may not be impaired by subsequent legislation. Morris v. Interstate Bond Co., 180 Ga. 689 , 180 S.E. 819 (1935).

Validity of statute affecting prior tax lien. - Former Code 1933, § 92-5712 (see O.C.G.A. § 48-5-25 ), providing that any party having an interest in property returned or assessed with other property for taxation shall be allowed to pay the taxes assessed against any one or more pieces of property in which he is so interested and obtain a release as to such property, is unconstitutional as applied to the lien of a tax execution previously transferred according to law and with the transfer duly recorded, because it would impair the obligation of a contract in violation of the state and federal Constitutions. Morris v. Interstate Bond Co., 180 Ga. 689 , 180 S.E. 819 (1935).

Validity of statute affecting remedy expressly made part of contract. - Remedies existing by law at time of execution of contract may be modified by the legislature without impairing the obligation, provided an efficient remedy is left for its enforcement; the rule is different, however, as to a remedy that the parties have expressly made a part of the contract, because in such case the remedy is integrated as a part of the obligation, and a subsequent statute which affects the remedy impairs the obligation and is unconstitutional. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson, 181 Ga. 266 , 182 S.E. 15 (1935).

Validity of statute affecting remedy existing as implicit part of contract. - Remedy subsisting in a state when and where a contract is made and is to be performed is a part of its obligation, and any subsequent law of the state which so affects that remedy as substantially to impair and lessen the value of the contract is forbidden by the Constitution, and is, therefore, void. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson, 181 Ga. 266 , 182 S.E. 15 (1935).

Obligation of a contract, in constitutional sense, is the means provided by law by which it can be enforced, by which the parties can be obliged to perform it, and whatever legislation lessens the efficacy of these means impairs the obligation. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson, 181 Ga. 266 , 182 S.E. 15 (1935).

Validity of statutes affecting rights conferred by prior security deed. - Because a security deed executed in 1930 provided that in case of default in payment of debt the grantee might sell the property at the courthouse in a named county different from that in which the property was located, after first advertising the sale for a stated period in a newspaper published in the county in which the sale should be conducted, former Code 1933, § 67-1506 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 ), could not be constitutionally applied to such preexisting contract so as to require, in terms of the statute, that the sale should be advertised and conducted at the time and place and in the usual manner of sheriff's sales in the county in which the property, or a part thereof, was located. The same is true of former Code 1933, §§ 67-1503 through 67-1505 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-14-161 ), relating to confirmation of sale, which abridges the right to a deficiency judgment after a sale under the security deed. As to the rights conferred by the prior security deed, Code 1933, §§ 67-1503 through 67-1506, is invalid. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson, 181 Ga. 266 , 182 S.E. 15 (1935).

Ordinance prohibiting the owning, maintaining, and operating of pinball machines and the like was not violative of the provisions of the federal and state Constitutions prohibiting the passage of laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Woodward v. City of Lithonia, 191 Ga. 234 , 11 S.E.2d 476 (1940).

Contractual nature of relation between electors and state upon approval and validation of school bonds. - The approval of school bonds by the electors and their validation according to statute created a status analogous to a contractual relation between such electors and the state, which relation could not be destroyed or impaired by a subsequent statute or constitutional provision. Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 200 Ga. 323 , 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946).

Claim that state statute impairs obligation of contract is an appeal to the United States Constitution and cannot be foreclosed by a state court's determination whether there was a contract or what were its obligations. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Phillips, 332 U.S. 168, 67 S. Ct. 1584 , 91 L. Ed. 1977 (1947).

Contractual nature of franchise granted by city to public service corporation. - It is generally recognized that a franchise granted by a city council to a public service corporation to use its streets and public places, if the city has the charter power to grant such a franchise, is a binding contract and cannot be impaired in view of the prohibition against impairment of the obligation of contracts contained in the United States Constitution. City of Summerville v. Georgia Power Co., 205 Ga. 843 , 55 S.E.2d 540 (1949).

Contract clause protects a vested ground of defense from being destroyed by an Act of the legislature. Guest v. Stone, 206 Ga. 239 , 56 S.E.2d 247 (1949).

Former Code 1933, § 3-108 (see O.C.G.A. § 9-2-20 ), permitting beneficiary under contract between other parties to recover, could be given no retroactive effect, as to do so would violate the provisions of the United States and state Constitutions as to impairing the obligations of contracts, by creating a right for one to recover under an existing contract where he previously had no such right and subjecting a party to an existing contract to liability to a third person who previously had no right under the contract. Guest v. Stone, 206 Ga. 239 , 56 S.E.2d 247 (1949).

Validity of statute eliminating ability payments. - Former Code 1933, § 78-911 (see O.C.G.A. § 47-17-81 ), which eliminated, under certain conditions, payment for permanent or total disability, did not violate constitutional provisions providing that no ex post facto law, retroactive law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed, because in passing former Code 1933, § 78-917 (see O.C.G.A. § 47-17-101 ) the legislature specifically provided that all rights and benefits conferred would be subject to future legislative change or revision, and that no beneficiary would be deemed to have any vested right to any annuities or benefits provided therein. Prichard v. Board of Comm'rs of Peace Officers Annuity & Benefit Fund, 211 Ga. 57 , 84 S.E.2d 26 (1954).

Pension is not a gratuity, but a contract based upon a consideration and gives pensioner a vested right which under U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X, cl. 1 cannot be impaired. Such contract cannot be modified, repealed, or defeated by subsequent Acts of the General Assembly after its creation. Burks v. Board of Trustees of Firemen's Pension Fund, 214 Ga. 251 , 104 S.E.2d 225 (1958).

Validity of statute destroying vested right to property. - Former Code 1933, § 67-1308 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-14-80 ), providing that title to real property conveyed to secure debt should revert to grantor when debt became 20 years past due, unless debt was extended or renewed and such renewal recorded, or an affidavit setting out the facts of renewal was recorded with the conveyance, which section imposed conditions upon grantee not in existence at time of execution of the contract, divested the grantee of a vested right to the property, and impaired the obligation of the contract as applied to such deed, which was executed prior to passage and effective date of the Act, is unconstitutional, because in violation of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X, cl. 1 and of Ga. Const. 1945, Art. I, Sec. III, Para. II, (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. X), which prohibited this state from passing any retroactive law or any law impairing the obligations of contracts. Todd v. Morgan, 215 Ga. 220 , 109 S.E.2d 803 (1959).

Validity of statute empowering courts to revise alimony and support judgments. - Former Code 1933, § 30-220 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 19-6-18 and 19-6-19 ), conferring jurisdiction and power on courts of this state to revise judgments fixing permanent alimony or support for minor children, does not offend those constitutional provisions of this state and of the United States which provide that no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted, and this is true even though the amount of alimony or support so awarded by the judgment, as well as the time during which it is to be paid, is agreed to in writing by the parties. Nelson v. Roberts, 216 Ga. 741 , 119 S.E.2d 545 (1961).

Validity of chapter governing pensions to retired judges of probate courts. - The obligation of the board to pay monthly benefits to retired ordinaries (now judges of probate courts) under former Code 1933, Ch. 24-17A (see O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 47) existed only so long as there existed funds to pay these benefits. When these funds were exhausted, the obligation of the board administering the chapter ended, and thus the chapter is not unconstitutional as violative of the contractual obligation clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. Sanders v. Harper, 220 Ga. 649 , 141 S.E.2d 156 (1965).

U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. X is restricted to the protection of vested rights; it does not render inviolate mere contingent or speculative interests. Webb v. Whitley, 114 Ga. App. 153 , 150 S.E.2d 261 (1966).

Decision to award a limited liability company fee simple title in real property did not violate the contract impairment clauses in U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. X and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. X as a corporation's rights to the property pursuant to a 1984 tax deed had not vested prior to the effective date of a 1989 amendment of O.C.G.A. § 48-4-48 , which operated retrospectively. BX Corp. v. Hickory Hill 1185, LLC, 285 Ga. 5 , 673 S.E.2d 205 (2009).

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X's prohibition of any state law impairing the obligation of contracts is not a limitation on the power of eminent domain. - The obligation of a contract is not impaired when it is appropriated to a public use and compensation made therefor. Such an exertion of power is a taking, and not an impairment of a contractual obligation. City of Atlanta v. Airways Parking Co., 225 Ga. 173 , 167 S.E.2d 145 (1969).

Condemnation of portion of rights of condemnee under its contract with city does not violate the provision of U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X, cl. 1 prohibiting the passage of a law impairing the obligation of contracts. City of Atlanta v. Airways Parking Co., 225 Ga. 173 , 167 S.E.2d 145 (1969).

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X, cl. 1 does not forbid the equitable modification of a contract. Selby v. Gilmer, 240 Ga. 241 , 240 S.E.2d 80 (1977).

Impairment of contracts by state for public welfare. - Constitutional restraints upon impairment of obligation of contracts do not prevent state from exercising such powers as are necessary in the exercise of its sovereign right to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the public, though contracts previously entered into between individuals may thereby be affected. Moore v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 242 Ga. 182 , 249 S.E.2d 549 (1978).

Act of General Assembly revoking city charter, thus abolishing municipal offices, is not a law in impairment of contract since the right of an incumbent to an office is not vested, but may be revoked if the law under which the incumbent holds office is capable of being repealed. City of Mt. View v. Clayton County, 242 Ga. 163 , 249 S.E.2d 541 (1978), appeal dismissed, 440 U.S. 902, 99 S. Ct. 1205 , 59 L. Ed. 2 d 450 (1979).

Contract clause does not prohibit state from repealing or amending statutes generally or from enacting legislation with retroactive effects. Appling County v. Municipal Elec. Auth., 621 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015, 101 S. Ct. 574 , 66 L. Ed. 2 d 474 (1980).

With respect to grants of political or governmental authority to cities, towns, counties, and the like, legislative power of states is not restrained by the contract clause. Appling County v. Municipal Elec. Auth., 621 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015, 101 S. Ct. 574 , 66 L. Ed. 2 d 474 (1980).

Preliminary question under contract clause analysis is whether the legislative action impaired or changed a specific contractual obligation. City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 636 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1981).

Constitutional provision is not applicable to individual conduct by persons acting under color of state law. Stone Mt. Game Ranch, Inc. v. Hunt, 570 F. Supp. 238 (N.D. Ga. 1983), aff'd, 746 F.2d 761 (11th Cir. 1984).

Municipality cannot claim statutory immunity to bar employee from recovering pay. - To bar a municipal employee from recovering pay for services the employee performed by allowing the municipality to claim statutory immunity would violate the prohibition against the impairment of a contract which is found in both the state and federal constitutions. Smith v. City of Atlanta, 167 Ga. App. 458 , 306 S.E.2d 720 (1983).

Reduction in future nonvested retirement benefits. - Since there is no vested right to benefits one was never entitled to receive, the reduction in future benefits to retiree did not violate the retiree's constitutional right to protection against impairment of contract. Tate v. Teachers' Retirement Sys., 257 Ga. 365 , 359 S.E.2d 649 (1987).

Retrospective application of judicial construction of insurance contracts. - The interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 33-34-5 by Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 156 Ga. App. 230 , 274 S.E.2d 623 (1980) was based on the insurer's failure to comply with specific requirements of the law and was not an unconstitutional impairment of the insurance contract. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bates, 542 F. Supp. 807 (N.D. Ga. 1982).

Franchise tax on gas sales. - Franchise granted in 1940 by town ordinance to gas company allowing for the sale and distribution of gas services to town inhabitants was not granted in perpetuity; thus, 1980 town ordinance providing for a three percent franchise tax on gas sales impaired no contractual rights granted to the assignor of the gas company's franchise, and trial court did not err in refusing to declare the 1980 ordinance unconstitutional as an impairment of contract. Gas Light Co. v. Town of Bibb City, 253 Ga. 498 , 322 S.E.2d 250 (1984).

Subjecting retirement benefits of retired school teachers to state income taxation did not violate the constitutional prohibition against state laws impairing the obligation of contracts, where the teachers had no vested right to an irrevocable exemption, such irrevocable exemption being barred under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VII, § I, Para. I. Parrish v. Employees' Retirement Sys., 260 Ga. 613 , 398 S.E.2d 353 (1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 353, 111 S. Ct. 2016 , 114 L. Ed. 2 d 103 (1991).

Duties on Imports

Non-discriminatory ad valorem tax constitutional. - A non-discriminatory ad valorem tax does not violate this section's "import-export" clause, where the imported goods are "no longer in transit". Los Angeles Tile Co. v. Chatham County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 209 Ga. App. 245 , 433 S.E.2d 82 (1993).

Nondiscriminatory ad valorem property taxes do not interfere with the free flow of imported goods among the states. Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 495 (1976).

Imports subject to uniform taxes imposed for services supplied by state. - The import-export clause clearly prohibits state taxation based on foreign origin of imported goods, but it cannot be read to accord imported goods preferential treatment that permits escape from uniform taxes imposed without regard to foreign origin for services which the state supplies. Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 495 (1976).

Taxable status of packaged and bulk imports. - There is a vast distinction between goods shipped in packaging, such as crates or cartons, and goods shipped in bulk. Packaged imports retain their status as imports, and are not subject to taxation. Bulk imports that have been mingled with other bulk imports, sorted, and arranged for sale do not retain their status as imports, and they are subject to taxation. Wages v. Michelin Tire Corp., 233 Ga. 712 , 214 S.E.2d 349 (1975), aff'd, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 495 (1976).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Validated bonds create a status analogous to a contractual relation which cannot be destroyed or impaired by a subsequent statute. - 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U77-10.

Reciprocal child support enforcement statute not violation of treaty provisions. - So long as a reciprocal child support enforcement statute does not require more than a routine review of foreign laws, does not directly affect United States foreign policy and does not have a potential for the disruption of foreign policy or embarrassment to the United States government, it does not violate the treaty provisions of the United States Constitution. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-12.

Prohibiting involuntary separation benefits to state employees. - An amendment to the Georgia Constitution prohibiting the grant of involuntary separation retirement benefits to state employees who are by law currently entitled to coverage under the involuntary separation benefits section of the Employees' Retirement System Act would, in all probability, be unconstitutional under the federal Impairment Clause contained in U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U83-72.

Retrospective application of provision terminating retirement benefits for conviction of crime. - The General Assembly has the authority to enact a statute which proposes the forfeiture of earned retirement benefits of future public employees due to the conviction of a crime; however, an amendment to the Georgia Constitution proposing such a forfeiture by employees who are currently by law vested with rights under the public retirement system would, in all probability, be unconstitutional under the federal Impairment Clause contained in U.S. Const., art. I, sec. X. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U85-3.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Relation of treaty to state and federal law, 4 A.L.R. 1377 ; 134 A.L.R. 882 .

Franchise provisions for free or reduced rates by public service corporations as contract protected from change under contract clause of federal Constitution, 10 A.L.R. 499 .

What money is legal tender, 31 A.L.R. 246 .

Effect of war on treaty rights, 47 A.L.R. 457 .

Constitutional or statutory changes affecting grand jury or substituting information for indictment as an ex post facto law, 53 A.L.R. 716 .

Effect of statutory change of penalty or punishment after conviction, 55 A.L.R. 443 .

Constitutionality of retroactive statute curing defect in private instrument purporting to convey title or create interest in property or as to filing or recording thereof, 57 A.L.R. 1197 .

Construction of statutes of limitation as regards their retrospective application to causes of action already barred, 67 A.L.R. 297 .

Constitutionality, construction, and applicability of statute making refusal to pay for commodities a criminal offense, 76 A.L.R. 1338 .

Retroactive effect of statutes regarding provisions with reference to avoidance of fire insurance policies, 78 A.L.R. 617 .

Imposition of wharfage or dockage fees, by state or municipality, as tonnage duty, 80 A.L.R. 388 .

Constitutional provision against impairing obligation of contract as applicable to statutes affecting rights or remedies of holders or owners of improvement bonds or liens, 85 A.L.R. 244 ; 97 A.L.R. 911 .

Blue Sky Laws, 87 A.L.R. 42 .

Statutes in relation to interest as obnoxious to constitutional provision against impairing obligation of contracts, 87 A.L.R. 462 .

Power to require filing of schedule of prices as a condition of license for a business or profession, 87 A.L.R. 519 .

Raising maximum limit of permissible municipal indebtedness as impairing obligation of existing municipal contracts, 90 A.L.R. 859 .

Debtor's exemption statutes as impairing obligations of existing contracts, 93 A.L.R. 177 .

Contracts for payment in gold or silver or in gold or silver coin ("gold coin" clauses), 95 A.L.R. 1383 ; 101 A.L.R. 1318 ; 114 A.L.R. 820 .

Constitutionality of statute changing rights of withdrawing members of building and loan association, 98 A.L.R. 82 ; 133 A.L.R. 1493 .

Validity of statute or ordinance regulating barbers, 98 A.L.R. 1088 .

Constitutional provision against impairing obligation of contracts as applied to rights or remedies of owners of property subject to assessment for local improvements, 100 A.L.R. 164 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute permitting release of part of property subject to tax liens or special assessments, 100 A.L.R. 418 .

Statute affecting mortgagee's rights and remedies in respect of deficiency as unconstitutional impairment of obligation of contract, 108 A.L.R. 891 ; 115 A.L.R. 435 ; 130 A.L.R. 1482 ; 133 A.L.R. 1473 .

Tax exemption as unconstitutionally impairing public obligations antedating the exemption, 109 A.L.R. 817 .

Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws as applicable to statutes relating to joinder of offenses or defendants, 110 A.L.R. 1308 .

Constitutionality of crop insurance statutes, 113 A.L.R. 739 .

Constitutional provisions against impairment of obligations of contract as applied to sinking funds for retirement of municipal or other public bonds, 115 A.L.R. 220 .

Validity and effect, as to previously recorded instrument, of statute which places or changes time limit on effectiveness of record of mortgages or other instruments, 133 A.L.R. 1325 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of compacts and statutes involving cooperation between states, 134 A.L.R. 1411 .

Constitutionality of statute which in effect limits judgment creditor after crediting thereon fair market value of property purchased by him at execution sale, 144 A.L.R. 858 .

Validity and construction of war legislation in nature of moratory statute, 144 A.L.R. 1508 .

Constitutionality and construction of repeal or modification by legislative action of teachers' tenure statute, as regards retrospective operation, 147 A.L.R. 293 .

Retroactive application, to previous sales, of statutes reducing period of redemption from tax sales, as unconstitutional impairment of contract obligations, 147 A.L.R. 1123 .

Price ceiling, adopted as a war measure, as affecting preexisting contracts, 147 A.L.R. 1286 ; 149 A.L.R. 1451 ; 151 A.L.R. 1450 .

Retrospective statute subjecting interests of trust beneficiaries to claims of creditors, 151 A.L.R. 1417 .

Rights of parties to contract the performance of which is interfered with or prevented by war conditions or acts of government in prosecution of war, 151 A.L.R. 1447 ; 152 A.L.R. 1447 ; 153 A.L.R. 1417 ; 154 A.L.R. 1445 ; 155 A.L.R. 1447 ; 156 A.L.R. 1446 ; 157 A.L.R. 1446 ; 158 A.L.R. 1446 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute or contract regarding deduction from, or adjustment of, wages in respect of defective workmanship, 153 A.L.R. 866 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statutes affecting the rights or remedies of purchasers under antecedent executory contracts for purchase of real property, 153 A.L.R. 1209 .

Retroactive application of statutes regarding enforcement of awards under workmen's compensation acts, 155 A.L.R. 558 .

Statute providing for apportionment between lessor and lessee of a tax imposed upon the producer of oil, gas, or other natural production as violation of the constitutional provision against impairment of the obligation of contracts, 160 A.L.R. 980 .

Retrospective operation of criminal negligence statute, 14 A.L.R.2d 726.

Validity of statute establishing or authorizing minimum price schedules for barbers, 54 A.L.R.3d 916.

Validity, construction, and effect of state franchising statute, 67 A.L.R.3d 1299.

Validity and construction of state or local regulation prohibiting off-premises advertising structures, 81 A.L.R.3d 486.

Validity and construction of state or local regulation prohibiting the erection or maintenance of advertising structures within a specified distance of street or highway, 81 A.L.R.3d 564.

Mandatory retirement of public officer or employee based on age, 81 A.L.R.3d 811.

Zoning: building in course of construction as establishing valid nonconforming use or vested right to complete construction for intended use, 89 A.L.R.3d 1051.

Prohibition, under state civil rights laws, of racial discrimination in rental of privately owned residential property, 96 A.L.R.3d 497.

Construction and application of U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10, cl. 1, and state constitutional provisions proscribing state bills of attainder, 63 A.L.R. 6 th 1.

ARTICLE II.

Sec.

Cross references. - Certification of presidential electors for indepen- dent candidate for president or vice-president, § 21-2-132.1 .

Law reviews. - For article, "The President as the Head of the Executive-Administrative Hierarchy: A Survey," see 8 J. of Pub. L. 437 (1959). For article discussing validity of "executive privilege" as defense to congressional demand for information, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 809 (1974). For article, "Rights as Trumps," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 463 (1993). For note, "Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary: If at First You Don't Succeed ...," 44 Mercer L. Rev. 959 (1993).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Generalized assertion of privilege yields to demonstrated, specific need for evidence in pending criminal trial. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

There is no presidential privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in criminal trial because of the guarantee of due process of law and the necessity to protect the basic function of the courts. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Assertion of presidential privilege must yield to need for evidence in pending criminal trial and to the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Neither doctrine of separation of powers nor need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances, since the impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions plainly conflicts with the function of the courts under U.S. Const., art. III. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Presidential and vice-presidential electors, 153 A.L.R. 1066 .

Section 1. [Executive Power, Election, Qualifications of the President]

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased or diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Cross references. - Factors disqualifying a person from nomination or election to public office, §§ 21-2-7 , 21-2-8 .

Election of presidential electors, §§ 21-2-10 through 21-2-12 .

Editor's notes. - U.S. Const., art. II, sec. I, cl. 3 has been superseded by U.S. Const., amend. 12, which makes the candidates and offices of President and Vice-President distinct in the selection process. United States Const., amend. 14, sec. III modifies U.S. Const., art. II, sec. I, cl. 5 by imposing additional, but probably anachronistic, disqualifying criteria. U.S. Const., art. II, sec. I, cl. 6, concerning the disability of a President or a vacancy of the office, has been superseded by U.S. Const., amend. 25.

Law reviews. - For article analyzing the relationship between the military and the first amendment right of individuals to engage in political activities, see 28 Emory L.J. 3 (1979). For article discussing the separation of powers implications of implied rights of actions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 973 (1983). For article, "Congress: The Purse, the Purpose, and the Power," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1986). For article, "Separation of Political Powers: Boundaries or Balance?," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 171 (1986). For article, "Article II Courts," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 825 (1993). For article, "The Trouble with Shadow Government," see 52 Emory L.J. 281 (2003). For article, "State Government: Organization of the Executive Branch Generally," see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 162 (2012). For note, "Bowsher v. Synar: Bright-Line Rule or Dice-Toss Approach to Separation of Powers?," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 969 (1987). For note, "Let Me Tell You What You Mean: An Analysis of Presidential Signing Statements," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 755 (1987). For comment on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 937, 72 S. Ct. 775 , 96 L. Ed. 1345 (1952), see 15 Ga. B.J. 90 (1952). For comment on United States v. Brand Jewelers, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 1293 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), as to implied power of the executive to sue, see 20 J. of Pub. L. 337 (1971).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Use of electoral college method in statewide elections. - The inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution validated the collegiate principle despite its inherent numerical inequality, but implied nothing about the use of an analogous system by a state in a statewide election. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S. Ct. 801 , 9 L. Ed. 2 d 821 (1963).

Cited in United States v. Raines, 189 F. Supp. 121 (M.D. Ga. 1960); Republic of Cuba v. Arcade Bldg. of Savannah, Inc., 104 Ga. App. 848 , 123 S.E.2d 453 (1961); Smith v. State Executive Comm. of Democratic Party, 288 F. Supp. 371 (N.D. Ga. 1968); Allan v. Allan, 236 Ga. 199 , 223 S.E.2d 445 (1976).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Constitutional inhibition of increase or decrease in compensation during term as applicable to nonconstitutional officer, 86 A.L.R. 1263 .

Constitutional inhibition of change of officer's compensation as applicable to allowance for expenses or disbursements, 106 A.L.R. 779 .

Validity, construction, and application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 879, prohibiting threats against former presidents or vice presidents and major candidates for such offices, members of their immediate families, members of immediate families of presidents-elect and vice presidents-elect, and certain others protected by secret service, 69 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 151.

Section 2. [Powers of the President]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Law reviews. - For article discussing control of tenure of executive officers by the President and the Governor, see 3 Ga. B.J. 13 (1941). For article, "Jury Trials in Contempt Cases," see 20 Ga. B.J. 297 (1957). For article, "The Subject-Matter Limitation Upon the Treaty-Making Power," see 11 J. of Pub. L. 122 (1962). For article discussing the presidential power of judicial appointment, as exercised under Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 145 (1971). For article, "The Treaty Power and Family Law," see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 55 (1972). For article, "The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties: 1974-1975," see 24 Emory L.J. 937 (1975). For article discussing problems in pardoning draft evaders and resisters, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1976). For article analyzing the relationship between the military and the first amendment right of individuals to engage in political activities, see 28 Emory L.J. 3 (1979). For article, "Federal Preemption, Federal Conscription Under the New Superfund Act," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 643 (1987). For article, "More Myths of Parity: State Court Forums and Constitutional Actions for the Right to Shelter," see 38 Emory L.J. 615 (1989). For article, "Article II Courts," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 825 (1993). For article, "A Constitutional Structure for Foreign Affairs," see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1059 (2003). For article, "Timber! The SEC Falls Hard as the Georgia District Court in Timbervest Finds the Appointment of the SEC ALJs 'Likely Unconstitutional,'" see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 459 (2016). For comment, "Insider Trading: The Problem with the SEC's In-House ALJS," see 67 Emory L.J. 123 (2017). For note discussing the doctrine of federal preemption in the allocation of powers between the nation and the states, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 391 (1973). For note, "Let Me Tell You What You Mean: An Analysis of Presidential Signing Statements," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 755 (1987). For note, "If Established by Law, Then an Administrative Judge is an Officer," see 53 Ga. L. Rev. 311 (2018). For comment on Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193 , 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944), upholding constitutionality of exclusion of Japanese-Americans from military arms, see 7 Ga. B.J. 364 (1945). For comment on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 937, 72 S. Ct. 775 , 96 L. Ed. 1345 (1952), see 15 Ga. B.J. 90 (1952). For comment on Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222 , 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1148 (1957) and Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470, 76 S. Ct. 886 , 100 L. Ed. 1342 (1956) as to military authority overseas over dependents of servicemen, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 540 (1957). For comment on Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 100 S. Ct. 533 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 428 (1979), discussing unilateral treaty termination by the President, see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 176 (1980). For comment, "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis," see 36 Emory L.J. 285 (1987).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutional power to grant reprieves and pardons includes power to grant commutations on lawful conditions. Lupo v. Zerbst, 92 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1937), cert. denied, 303 U.S. 646, 58 S. Ct. 645 , 82 L. Ed. 1108 (1938).

Cited in United States v. Jenkins, 141 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. Ga. 1956); United States v. Raines, 189 F. Supp. 121 (M.D. Ga. 1960); Block v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 229 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Ga. 1964); Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Reciprocal child support enforcement statute not violation of treaty provisions. - So long as a reciprocal child support enforcement statute does not require more than a routine review of foreign laws, does not directly affect United States foreign policy and does not have a potential for the disruption of foreign policy or embarrassment to the United States government, it does not violate the treaty provisions of the United States Constitution. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-12.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Relation of treaty to state and Federal law, 4 A.L.R. 1377 ; 134 A.L.R. 882 .

Power of executive to pardon one for contempt, 26 A.L.R. 21 ; 38 A.L.R. 171 ; 63 A.L.R. 226 .

Constitutionality of statute conferring on court power to suspend sentence, 26 A.L.R. 399 ; 101 A.L.R. 402 .

Distinction between office and employment, 53 A.L.R. 595 ; 93 A.L.R. 333 ; 140 A.L.R. 1076 .

Pardon as defense to proceeding for suspension or cancellation of license of physician, surgeon, or dentist, 126 A.L.R. 257 .

Pardon as affecting impeachment by proof of conviction of crime, 30 A.L.R.2d 893.

Construction and application of appointments clause of United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, cl. 2, 59 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1.

Section 3. [Powers and Duties of the President]

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Law reviews. - For article discussing role of court in the release of presidentially impounded funds, see 24 Emory L.J. 313 (1975). For article, "The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties: 1974-1975," see 24 Emory L.J. 937 (1975). For survey of 1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on administrative law, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1057 (1988). For note, "Let Me Tell You What You Mean: An Analysis of Presidential Signing Statements," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 755 (1987). For comment, "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis," see 36 Emory L.J. 285 (1987).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1967).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

U.S. Const., art. II, sec. III means that laws must be executed as required by other constitutional provisions, such as the one that demands a request from the legislature or the Governor of the state, before troops are used to put down domestic violence under U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. IV. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 8.

Section 4. [Impeachment]

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Law reviews. - For article discussing the presidential power of judicial appointment, as exercised under Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 145 (1971). For article, "Judicial Removal of Federal Judges," see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 157 (1975). For article analyzing the relationship between the military and the first amendment right of individuals to engage in political activities, see 28 Emory L.J. 3 (1979). For article, "Removal and Discipline of Federal Judges," see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 681 (1980).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Physical or mental disability as disqualification or ground of removal or impeachment of public officer, 28 A.L.R. 777 .

Nature of proceedings under statute providing for removal of officer on accusation by grand jury, etc., 81 A.L.R. 1089 .

Power to remove public officer without notice and hearing, 99 A.L.R. 336 .

Removal of public officers for misconduct during previous term, 42 A.L.R.3d 691.

ARTICLE III.

Sec.

Law reviews. - For article, "Judicial Supremacy in America; Its Colonial and Constitutional History," see 16 Ga. B.J. 148 (1953). For article advocating judicial restraint of the federal courts, see 17 Ga. B.J. 442 (1955). For article considering the power of the United States House of Representatives to expel a member and the power of the judiciary to review such an expulsion, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 203 (1971). For article discussing developing principles of state sovereignty limitations on Congress' exercise of its granted powers, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 35 (1976). For article, "The Role of the Judiciary With Respect to the Other Branches of Government," see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 455 (1977). For article discussing theoretical problems raised by constitutional adjudication and judicial supremacy in the United States, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 1069 (1977). For article discussing the evolution of judicial interpretivism, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 389 (1980). For article, "The Limits of Judicial Supremacy: A Proposal For Checked Activism," see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 471 (1980). For article, "Congress As Constitutional Decisionmaker and Its Power to Counter Judicial Doctrine," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 57 (1986). For article, "The Jurisdictional Nature of the Time to Appeal," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 399 (1986). For article, "Judicial Review, Foreign Affairs and Legislative Standing," see 25 Ga. L. Rev. 227 (1991). For article, "Missouri v. Jenkins: The Expansion of Federal Judicial Power," see 7 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 495 (1991). For article, "Spallone v. United States: When Constitutional Principles Collide," see 7 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 527 (1991). For article, "Individual Rights and the Powers of Government," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 343 (1993). For article, "Rights as Trumps," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 463 (1993). For article, "Article II Courts," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 825 (1993). For symposium articles on federal judicial independence, see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 637 et seq. (1995). For article, "Limiting Article III Standing to 'Accidental' Plaintiffs: Lessons from Environmental and Animal Law Cases," see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (2010). For article, "The Impact of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA on the Doctrine of Fear-Based Standing," see 49 Ga. L. Rev. 247 (2014). For article, "Class Actions in the Year 2026: A Prognosis," see 65 Emory L.J. 1569 (2016). For article, “Public Rights, Private Privileges, and Article III,” see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 143 (2019). For note, "Tension Between Judicial and Legislative Powers as Reflected in Confrontations Between Congress and the Courts," see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 1513 (1979). For note, "American National Red Cross v. S.G. & A.E.: Bad Blood in the Federal Courts," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 687 (1993). For note, "Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: The Court Maintains Its Proper Role in Environmental Issues," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 1443 (1993).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

There is no presidential privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in criminal trial because of the guarantee of due process of law and the necessity to protect the basic function of the courts. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Neither doctrine of separation of powers nor need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances, since the impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions plainly conflicts with the function of the courts under U.S. Const., art. III. Calley v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Ga. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S. Ct. 1505 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 760 (1976).

Unlawful intrusion on lawful powers of court. - Regulation purporting to excuse compliance with a judgment and order of the federal district court which is "subject to review . . . by a higher reviewing authority" was invalid insofar as it might conflict with the order in the case or affect the jurisdiction of the court to fashion a remedy in the matter. Charter Medical Corp. v. Heckler, 604 F. Supp. 638 (M.D. Ga. 1985).

Cited in Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant, 231 F. Supp. 396 (N.D. Ga. 1964); Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 518 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1975); Inmates of Henry County Jail v. Parham, 430 F. Supp. 304 (N.D. Ga. 1976); International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Eaves, 601 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Elsoffer, 644 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1981); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bates, 542 F. Supp. 807 (N.D. Ga. 1982); Estes v. Cranshaw (In re N & D Properties, Inc.), 54 Bankr. 590 (N.D. Ga. 1985); Parker v. Dole, 668 F. Supp. 1563 (N.D. Ga. 1987); Duckworth v. Medical Electro-Therapeutics, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 822 (S.D. Ga. 1991).

Bankruptcy

Supreme Court empowered to stay decision declaring Bankruptcy Act unconstitutional. - The Supreme Court had the power to stay until October 4, 1982, the effect of its decision in Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S. Ct. 2858 , 73 L. Ed. 2 d 598 (1982) declaring certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 unconstitutional. Anderson v. CBS, Inc., 31 Bankr. 161 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1982).

Bankruptcy jurisdiction must be exercised by Article III judges. - Bankruptcy jurisdiction is Article III power and must be exercised by Article III judges at every stage of the consideration. Ellenberg v. Henry, 38 Bankr. 24 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1983).

Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain bankruptcy cases. Seven Springs Apts. v. Calmark Assets, 34 Bankr. 987 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

The Supreme Court, in 1982, rendered unconstitutional only subsection (c) of 28 U.S.C. § 1471, which provided that the bankruptcy court for the district in which a bankruptcy case is commenced shall exercise "all of the jurisdiction" conferred on the district court, and left intact the bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction of the district courts. Committee of Unsecured Creditors of FS Communications Corp. v. Hyatt Greenville Corp., 760 F.2d 1194 (11th Cir. 1985).

No district or bankruptcy court has any exercisable jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases, matters, or proceedings after December 24, 1982, and district court could not confer jurisdiction on bankruptcy court by adoption of the emergency rule. Williamson v. General Fin. Co., 28 Bankr. 276 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1983).

Bankruptcy courts are not Article III courts and therefore may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Parklane/Atlanta Venture, 927 F.2d 532 (11th Cir. 1991).

Jurisdiction of bankruptcy court by referral from district court. - Bankruptcy courts obtain jurisdiction over Title 11 cases or proceedings only by referral at the discretion of the district courts, and the district court may withdraw such reference for cause. Nevertheless, the cause prerequisite should not be used to prevent the district court from properly withdrawing reference either to ensure that the judicial power of the United States is exercised by an Article III court or in order to fulfill its supervisory function over the bankruptcy courts. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Parklane/Atlanta Venture, 927 F.2d 532 (11th Cir. 1991).

Bankruptcy court has no authority to issue an unreviewable order, to dismiss, or, alternatively, to abstain from jurisdiction over a bankruptcy case. Goerg v. Parungao, 930 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir. 1991).

Bankruptcy court cannot conduct jury trial. - Conducting a jury trial by a bankruptcy court would violate Article III of the Constitution. Ellenberg v. Bouldin, 125 Bankr. 851 (N.D. Ga. 1990).

District courts still have jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and proceedings, and, therefore, may refer these actions to the bankruptcy court. Pettigrew v. Kutak, Rock & Huie, 30 Bankr. 989 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Article III courts have authority to promulgate local rules. - Article III courts have inherent equitable power to provide themselves with appropriate instruments required for the performance of their duties, such as local rules to administer court business properly brought before the court. Pettigrew v. Kutak, Rock & Huie, 30 Bankr. 989 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Local rule constitutional. - Local rules which provide that in "related proceedings" the bankruptcy judge may not enter a judgment or dispositive order, but shall submit findings, conclusions, and a proposed judgment or order to the district judge, unless the parties to the proceeding consent to entry of the judgment or order by the bankruptcy judge, "related proceedings" being defined to be those civil proceedings that in the absence of a petition in bankruptcy, could have been brought in a district court or a state court, are constitutional. Flint ex rel. Flint v. Speir Ins. Agency, Inc., 33 Bankr. 814 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

A non-Article III court may perform the functions of presiding over a trial and recommending a disposition, so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district judge. Implicitly then, those sections of the local bankruptcy rule permitting de novo review by the district court are constitutional. Seven Springs Apts. v. Calmark Assets, 34 Bankr. 987 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

District court authorized to promulgate Emergency Rule for bankruptcy matters. - The district court has original jurisdiction of bankruptcy matters and had authority to promulgate the Emergency Rule, which refers to the bankruptcy court all cases under Title 11 and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to cases under Title 11. Ridgefield, Inc. v. Unity Foods, Inc., 35 Bankr. 876 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1983).

Emergency Local Rule powers must be exercised by Article III judges. - The Emergency Local Rule delegates judicial responsibilities to bankruptcy judges, which may not be exercised constitutionally by non-Article III judges. Ellenberg v. Henry, 38 Bankr. 24 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1983).

Emergency Local Rule constitutional. - The temporary Emergency Model Local Rule adopted by the district court of the northern district of Georgia, which asserts jurisdiction and judicial power in the district court over Title 11 cases and proceedings filed in the bankruptcy court, then refers all bankruptcy cases and proceedings, and controversies arising out of or related thereto, to the existing United States bankruptcy judges of the United States bankruptcy court, except for certain judicial actions as prescribed in the rule, is constitutional. Committee of Unsecured Creditors of FS Communications Corp. v. Hyatt Greenville Corp., 760 F.2d 1194 (11th Cir. 1985).

Bankruptcy judges cannot decide peripheral state common-law claims. - Non-Article III bankruptcy judges cannot constitutionally be vested with jurisdictional power to decide state common-law claims brought pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act and related only peripherally to a bankruptcy case adjudicated under federal law. Pettigrew v. Kutak, Rock & Huie, 30 Bankr. 989 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Bankruptcy judge cannot decide "related" civil proceedings under Bankruptcy Reform Act. - A non-Article III United States bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings initiated by the debtor alleging violations of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1640. Such proceedings are "related" civil proceedings as described in 28 U.S.C. § 1471(b) and (c), as enacted by § 241(a) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, which is an unconstitutional grant of Article III authority, i.e., the "judicial power of the United States," to non-Article III judges. Brown v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 32 Bankr. 590 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1983).

While a bankruptcy court may determine whether the debtor's obligation to provide educational expenses under a separation agreement is dischargeable, it is without jurisdiction to inquire into the interpretation of the agreement in order to establish or to modify the debtor's obligation for child support. Sharp v. Harrell, 33 Bankr. 989 (N.D. Ga. 1983), aff'd, 754 F.2d 902 (11th Cir. 1985).

Bankruptcy judges may not exercise contempt powers. - The statutory grant of contempt powers to bankruptcy judges is unconstitutional. The power of contempt is essentially judicial and may not be constitutionally exercised by a bankruptcy court, a non-Article III court. If the bankruptcy court feels that a civil contempt sanction is necessary, it should certify the facts to the district court for an appropriate order. Tele-Wire Supply Corp. v. Presidential Fin. Corp., Inc. (In re Indus. Tool Distribs., Inc.), 55 Bankr. 746 (N.D. Ga. 1985) (Decided prior to 1987 amendment of Federal Bankruptcy Rule 9020. See Walton v. Jones (In re Shirley), 184 Bankr. 613 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995)).

Cases and Controversies

District court jurisdiction of probate matters. - It is generally established that probate matters such as the validity of a will and the administration of a decedent's estate are so far proceedings in rem as not to be among the "controversies" of which the district courts may be given jurisdiction under U.S. Const., art. III, and have been given jurisdiction under the statutes. Heath v. Jones, 168 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1948).

U.S. Const., art. III limits jurisdiction of federal courts to cases and controversies. Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1970), modified, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739 , 35 L. Ed. 2 d 201 (1973).

In actions for declaratory judgments, district court may not render advisory opinion on constitutionality of state statute. Rather there must be "exigent adversity," an actual controversy in which the constitutionality of the statute is drawn into question in a truly adversary context. Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1970), modified, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739 , 35 L. Ed. 2 d 201 (1973).

Federal courts established pursuant to U.S. Const., art. III do not render advisory opinions, but are limited to deciding issues in actual cases and controversies. Baxter v. Strickland, 381 F. Supp. 487 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Controversy, in order to be decided by federal court, must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, and must be real and substantial, admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. Baxter v. Strickland, 381 F. Supp. 487 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Justiciability is term of art employed to give expression to limitation placed upon the federal courts by the case and controversy doctrine. Where there is no showing that a state action which forms the basis of a complaint by one affected by the action was predicated on or justified by the challenged statute, there is no actual "case or controversy" concerning the constitutionality of the statute and thus the constitutionality thereof is not justiciable. Baxter v. Strickland, 381 F. Supp. 487 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Personal animosity between parties to lawsuit is not necessary aspect of controversy under U.S. Const., art. III. A controversy need only be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. Septum, Inc. v. Keller, 614 F.2d 456 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 992, 101 S. Ct. 527 , 66 L. Ed. 2 d 288 (1980).

Required showing of injury to plaintiff. - In order to meet the hurdle of U.S. Const., art. III's "case or controversy" justiciability requirement, plaintiff must show that he has suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from actions of the defendant. Smith v. Price, 616 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1980).

In the case of regulations governing speech or conduct, threat of interference with rights of plaintiff beyond that implied by the mere existence of the regulations must be shown to constitute a "case or controversy." Smith v. Price, 616 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1980).

Contesting forfeitures. - In order to contest a forfeiture, a claimant first must demonstrate a sufficient interest in the property to give him Article III standing; otherwise there is no "case or controversy", in the constitutional sense, capable of adjudication in the federal courts. United States v. 1419 Mount Alto Rd., 830 F. Supp. 1476 (N.D. Ga. 1993).

Standing and Ripeness

Immediate harm or threat of harm to plaintiff prerequisite to exercise of judicial power. - Federal judicial power is to be exercised to strike down legislation, whether state or federal, only at the instance of one who is himself immediately harmed, or immediately threatened with harm, by the challenged action. Baxter v. Strickland, 381 F. Supp. 487 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Ripeness is constitutional and jurisdictional prerequisite to both injunctive and declaratory relief. Baxter v. Strickland, 381 F. Supp. 487 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

One challenging a statute must demonstrate that the person is immediately injured or jeopardized by its operation in order for ripeness to exist. Baxter v. Strickland, 381 F. Supp. 487 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Standing is not confined to those who show economic harm, nor is it necessarily denied because alleged injury is commonly shared. Hall County Historical Soc'y, Inc. v. Georgia DOT, 447 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ga. 1978).

Threatened harm which is real, not "imaginary," "speculative," or "chimerical," will satisfy standing prerequisites. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 449 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ga. 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 621 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1980).

In order to avoid rendering advisory opinions, a federal court must evaluate substance of plaintiff's claimed injury in fact and alleged position within the zone of interests. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 449 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ga. 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 621 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1980).

Standing requirement existing in federal court requires that challenged action has caused plaintiff injury in fact, economic or otherwise, and the interest sought to be protected is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by a statute or constitutional guarantee. Midway Youth Football Ladies Auxiliary, Inc. v. Strickland, 449 F. Supp. 418 (N.D. Ga. 1978).

Standing is question of whether plaintiff is sufficiently adversary to defendant to create a case or controversy under U.S. Const., art. III. Cherry v. AMOCO Oil Co., 481 F. Supp. 727 (N.D. Ga. 1979).

Fundamental standing requirement of U.S. Const., art. III, is that a litigant in the federal court must allege a distinct and palpable injury to the litigant. Maddox v. Southern Disct. Co., 34 Bankr. 801 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1982).

Individual taxpayers establish standing upon showing of unconstitutional expenditure. - Individual plaintiffs who are taxpayers in the relevant jurisdiction meet the test for taxpayer standing by identifying an allegedly unconstitutional expenditure of funds pursuant to a state spending statute. Birdine v. Moreland, 579 F. Supp. 412 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Renter "tester". - A "tester" - an individual who, without an intent to rent an apartment, posed as a renter for the purpose of collecting evidence of discriminatory practices - had standing under the 1866 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1982). Watts v. Boyd Properties, Inc., 758 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1985).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - May Federal court, acquiring jurisdiction because of Federal question but deciding such question adversely to party invoking jurisdiction, decide non-Federal questions, 12 A.L.R.2d 695.

Section 1. [Judicial Power, Tenure of Office]

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Law reviews. - For article, "In Re: The Supreme Court of the United States, Report and Resolution of the Conference of Chief Justices," see 21 Ga. B.J. 139 (1958). For article examining Justice Cardozo's thought on legal method and the legitimacy of judicial authority, see 15 J. of Pub. L. 122 (1966). For article discussing the philosophy of Professor Philip Kurland on the extension of judicial power by the Warren Court and its entrance into the political realm, see 15 J. of Pub. L. 230 (1966). For article, "The Concept of Judicial Policy-Making: A Critique," see 15 J. of Pub. L. 286 (1966). For article, "The Selection and Tenure of Judges," see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 281 (1966). For article, "Chief Justice Burger and Extra-Case Activism," see 20 J. of Pub. L. 533 (1971). For article discussing the presidential power of judicial appointment, as exercised under Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 145 (1971). For article "The Role and Impact of the Supreme Court and Judicial Decision-Making in the Evolution of American Federalism," see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 457 (1972). For article, "Judicial Removal of Federal Judges," see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 157 (1975). For article, "Removal and Discipline of Federal Judges," see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 681 (1980). For article discussing the separation of powers implications of implied rights of actions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 973 (1983). For article surveying 1982 Eleventh Circuit cases involving bankruptcy law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 1209 (1983). For article, "After ABSCAM: An Examination of Congressional Proposals to Limit Targeting Discretion in Federal Undercover Investigations," see 36 Emory L.J. 75 (1987). For article, "Plying the Erie Waters: Choice of Law in the Deterrence of Frivolous Appeals," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 653 (1987). For article, "Judicial Privilege," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 89 (1987). For article, "An Overview of the New Federal Sentencing Guidelines," see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 16 (1988). For article, "The Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act: Will Judges Judge Judges?," see 37 Emory L.J. 45 (1988). For article, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1946-1953," see 37 Emory L.J. 249 (1988). For article, "Preserving Judicial Integrity: Some Comments on the Role of the Judiciary Under the 'Blending' of Powers," see 37 Emory L.J. 587 (1988). For article, "Is Disparity a Problem," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1988). For article, "More Myths of Parity: State Court Forums and Constitutional Actions for the Right to Shelter," see 38 Emory L.J. 615 (1989). For article, "Agencies Interpreting Courts Interpreting Statutes: The Deference Conundrum of a Divided Supreme Court," see 61 Emory L. J. 1 (2011). For article, "Talking Textualism, Practicing Pragmatism: Rethinking the Supreme Court's Approach to Statutory Interpretation," see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 121 (2016). For article, "How Both the EU and the U.S. are 'Stricter' Than Each Other for the Privacy of Government Requests for Information," see 66 Emory L.J. 617 (2017). For note on amenability of dependents of servicemen and nonmilitary employees to court-martial overseas, see 9 J. of Pub. L. 252 (1960). For comment, "Pendent Party Jurisdiction After Finley v. United States: A Trend Toward Its Abolition," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 447 (1990). For comment, "Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Invisible Justices: How Our Highest Court Hides from the American People," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 787 (2016). For comment, "Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Myth or Reality?," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 849 (2016). For comment, "Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency and Policymaking at the Supreme Court," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 903 (2016). For comment, "Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 927 (2016).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

District court can entertain only such cases as Congress gives it jurisdiction to try. Jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases may be withheld altogether; but once Congress confers jurisdiction to try a case it cannot withhold power to decide the case according to the applicable law. Payne v. Griffin, 51 F. Supp. 588 (M.D. Ga. 1943).

Power to limit jurisdiction of district courts. - Congress' power to establish federal district courts includes the discretionary authority to limit and create exceptions to the jurisdiction of those courts. As a result, where Congress grants exclusive jurisdiction over a particular type of claim to a specific agency or tribunal, or explicitly takes jurisdiction away from federal district courts, the federal district courts are bound by that decision. United States v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 795 F. Supp. 1131 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

Cited in Perkins v. Brown, 53 F. Supp. 176 (S.D. Ga. 1943); Southern Ry. v. Hogue, 117 Ga. App. 874 , 162 S.E.2d 471 (1968); Bond v. White, 508 F.2d 1397 (5th Cir. 1975); Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 678 F.2d 992 (11th Cir. 1982); Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. de Navegacion, 773 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1985); Walton v. Jones (In re Shirley), 184 Bankr. 613 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995).

Section 2. [Jurisdiction]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Editor's notes. - United States Const., amend. 11 modifies U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 1 by restricting the judicial power of federal courts as to controversies commenced against a state by citizens of another or foreign state. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as to questions of "fact," granted in U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 2, has been curtailed by U.S. Const., amend. 7.

Law reviews. - For article, "Georgia Versus the United States Supreme Court," see 4 J. of Pub. L. 285 (1955). For article, "The Law of the Land," focusing on the role of the Supreme Court, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 444 (1957). For article, "Whether the Appellate Power of the Supreme Court Should Be Limited, Or More Expressly Declared," see 21 Ga. B.J. 19 (1958). For article, "In Re: The Supreme Court of the United States, Report and Resolution of the Conference of Chief Justices," see 21 Ga. B.J. 139 (1958). For article, "The Scope of Review of Facts by United States Courts of Appeals," see 21 Ga. B.J. 291 (1959). For article, "Criminal Venue and Related Problems," see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 331 (1966). For article, "Motorboat Collisions and the Family Purpose Doctrine," see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 473 (1966). For article discussing the doctrine of sovereign immunity in light of the eleventh amendment, see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 207 (1968). For article, "Chief Justice Burger and Extra-Case Activism," see 20 J. of Pub. L. 533 (1971). For article, "The Role and Impact of the Supreme Court and Judicial Decision-Making in the Evolution of American Federalism," see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 457 (1972). For article discussing the definition of the "cases" and "controversies" requirement of U.S. Const., Art. III, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 1069 (1977). For article discussing federal civil litigation, with respect to Article III, first, fourteenth and fifteenth amendment issues, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 821 (1979). For article, "Constitutional Criminal Litigation," see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 993 (1981). For article discussing congressional legislation which seeks to overturn or frustrate constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 707 (1982). For article, "Title VII Class Actions: The End of the Era of the Irrelevant Plaintiff," see 36 Mercer L. Rev. 907 (1985). For article, "The Georgia Bill of Rights: Dead or Alive?," see 34 Emory L.J. 341 (1985). For article, "Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930," see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986). For article, "Justice and Juror," see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 257 (1986). For survey of 1984-85 Eleventh Circuit cases on admiralty, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1169 (1986). For article, "Separation of Political Powers: Boundaries or Balance?," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 171 (1986). For article, "Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987). For survey of 1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on administrative law, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1057 (1988). For survey of 1986-1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on admiralty, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1107 (1988). For survey of Eleventh Circuit cases on trial practice and procedure, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1307 (1988). For article, "Eleventh Amendment Jurisprudence After Atascadero: The Coming Clash with Antitrust, Copyright, and Other Causes of Action over Which the Federal Courts Have Exclusive Jurisdiction," see 37 Emory L.J. 645 (1988). For annual eleventh circuit survey of admiralty law, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 1209 (1991). For survey of 1995 Eleventh Circuit cases on admiralty law, see 47 Mercer L. Rev. 691 (1996). For article, "The Cauldron Boils: Supplemental Jurisdiction, Amount in Controversy, and Diversity of Citizenship Class Actions," see 53 Emory L.J. 55 (2004). For article, "Appellate Practice and Procedure," see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 1185 (2005). For article, "Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014: Class Actions," see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 903 (2015). For note, "Another Milepost in Jury Selection Under the Constitution," see 2 J. of Pub. L. 456 (1953). For note discussing the doctrine of federal preemption in the allocation of powers between the nation and the states, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 391 (1973). For note discussing federal courts' practice of abstention, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 439 (1973). For note, "State Standing in Police Misconduct Cases: Expanding the Boundaries of Parens Patriae," see 16 Ga. L. Rev. 865 (1982). For note, "Express Waiver of Eleventh Amendment Immunity," see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 513 (1983). For note on solid waste disposal, flow control ordinances and regulations, see 32 Ga. L. Rev. 1227 (1998). For note, "Foreign States are Foreign States: Why Foreign State-Owned Corporations Are Not Persons Under the Due Process Clause," see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 913 (2011). For note, "Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 834 (2018). For note, "Partisan Gerrymandering and Georgia: Red, White, and Blue or Just Red and Blue?," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 487 (2019). For comment concerning standing of utility to challenge constitutionality of Tennessee Valley Authority Act, in light of Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 59 S. Ct. 366 , 83 L. Ed. 543 (1939), see 2 Ga. B.J. 59 (1939). For comment on Hibdon v. United States, 204 F.2d 834 (6th Cir. 1953), reversing a felony conviction decided by a majority verdict upon the accused's waiver of a unanimous verdict induced by the trial court, see 16 Ga. B.J. 234 (1953). For comment on Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222 , 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1148 (1957) and Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470, 76 S. Ct. 886 , 100 L. Ed. 1342 (1956), as to military authority overseas over dependents of servicemen, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 540 (1957). For comment on O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S. Ct. 1683 , 23 L. Ed. 291 (1969), as to limits of court-martial's jurisdiction to try serviceman, see 18 J. of Pub. L. 471 (1969). For comment on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 , 27 L. Ed. 2 d 669 (1971), and Samuelo v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S. Ct. 764 , 27 L. Ed. 2 d 688 (1971), concerning a federal court's jurisdiction to grant injunction and declaratory relief in state court proceedings brought pursuant to allegedly unconstitutional state statutes, see 20 J. of Pub. L. 581 (1971). For comment discussing constitutionality of conviction upon less-than-unanimous jury vote, see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 339 (1973). For comment discussing admiralty jurisdiction over airplane crash, in light of Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 93 S. Ct. 493 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 454 (1972), see 25 Mercer L. Rev. 927 (1974). For comment, "Ancillary Jurisdiction: The Kroger Approach and The Federal Rules," see 28 Emory L.J. 463 (1979). For comment on ACLU v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983), see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 1603 (1983). For comment, "Supreme Court Review of State Court Cases: Principled Federalism or Selective Bias?," see 36 Emory L.J. 1277 (1987). For comment, "Pendent Party Jurisdiction After Finley v. United States: A Trend Toward Its Abolition," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 447 (1990). For comment, "Inappropriate Forum or Inappropriate Law? A Choice of Law Solution to the Jurisdictional Standoff Between the United States and Latin America," see 60 Emory L.J. 1437 (2011). For comment, "Resurrecting the Public Voice: The Expansion of Standing in Patent Litigation," see 65 Emory L.J. 893 (2016). For comment, "Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Invisible Justices: How Our Highest Court Hides from the American People," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 787 (2016). For comment, "Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Myth or Reality?," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 849 (2016). For comment, "Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency and Policymaking at the Supreme Court," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 903 (2016). For comment, "Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media," see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 927 (2016).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

"Contacts" with forum state not germane to Bankruptcy Act. - As federal district courts have personal jurisdiction in federal bankruptcy actions over any person with minimum contacts with the United States, and as the federal Bankruptcy Act permits nationwide service of process, a federal district court had ancillary personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a "non-core," related bankruptcy proceeding. This was true even though the defendant lacked minimum contacts with the forum state. Chemical Bank v. Grigsby's World of Carpet, Inc. (In re WWG Indus., Inc.), 44 Bankr. 287 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Congress clearly had the power to confer on the United States District Court subject matter jurisdiction of a suit against a nonresident by an assignee of a debtor in bankruptcy to collect on accounts allegedly owed the debtor. Chemical Bank v. Grigsby's World of Carpet, Inc. (In re WWG Indus., Inc.), 44 Bankr. 287 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Prosecution for violation of 29 U.S.C. § 461 must occur in the District of Columbia. - Prosecution for failure to file with the Secretary of Labor the trusteeship reports required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 461(a) and (c) (1980) when an international union takes over the operation of a local union can only take place in the District of Columbia. United States v. DiJames, 731 F.2d 758 (11th Cir. 1984).

Maritime attachment procedures. - For case discussing the constitutionality of maritime attachment procedures under admiralty rules, see Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. Bottacchi, 732 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1984).

Composition and placement of United States Sentencing Commission, created by the federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (28 U.S.C. §§ 991-998), was unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers. United States v. Richardson, 690 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Ga. 1988); United States v. Kane, 691 F. Supp. 341 (N.D. Ga. 1988).

Statute allowing removal of prosecutions against members of armed forces. - The statute allowing removal of certain state criminal prosecutions against members of the armed forces, 28 U.S.C. § 1442a, is not a statute upon which "arising under" jurisdiction can be based; it requires that a defendant must present a federal defense for removal. Georgia v. Westlake, 929 F. Supp. 1516 (M.D. Ga. 1996).

Cited in Ventimiglia v. Aderhold, 51 F.2d 308 (N.D. Ga. 1931); Farnsworth v. Zerbst, 98 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1938); Perkins v. Brown, 53 F. Supp. 176 (S.D. Ga. 1943); Smith v. UMW, 180 F. Supp. 796 (M.D. Ga. 1958); United States v. Raines, 203 F. Supp. 147 (M.D. Ga. 1961); Wirtz v. Alapaha Yellow Pine Prods., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 465 (M.D. Ga. 1963); Franklin v. United States, 384 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1967); Stevens Indus., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 391 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1968); Bond v. Fortson, 334 F. Supp. 1192 (N.D. Ga. 1971); United States v. Crow, Pope & Land Enters., Inc., 340 F. Supp. 25 (N.D. Ga. 1972); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 94 S. Ct. 1209 , 39 L. Ed. 2 d 505 (1974); Lucas v. Hope, 515 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1975); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 563 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1977); Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 678 F.2d 992 (11th Cir. 1982); Athens Lumber Co. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 689 F.2d 1006 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Brantley, 733 F.2d 1429 (11th Cir. 1984); Cox Cable Communications, Inc. v. United States, 992 F.2d 1178 (11th Cir. 1993); Sammons v. National Comm'n on Certification of Physician Assistants, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2000).

Extent of Jurisdiction
1. In General

The language, "shall extend . . . to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction," imports an absolute and exclusive grant of power. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Grant, 169 Ga. 325 , 150 S.E. 424 (1929), cert. denied, 281 U.S. 690, 50 S. Ct. 240 , 74 L. Ed. 1120 (1930).

Nature of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. - Jurisdiction is conferred on the federal courts in admiralty because, as the seas are the joint property of the nations, the jurisdiction is essentially national and because of their nature such cases are closely connected with the grant of the commerce power. The jurisdiction is not restricted to admiralty, but includes all maritime jurisdiction. The constitutional provision for federal jurisdiction refers to a system of law operating uniformly in the whole country, and regard must be had to the legal history, Constitution, legislation, customs, and adjudications. The admiralty jurisdiction was not intended to be as limited as it was in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and it was to guard against a narrow construction of the word "admiralty" that "maritime" was added. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Grant, 169 Ga. 325 , 150 S.E. 424 (1929), cert. denied, 281 U.S. 690, 50 S. Ct. 240 , 74 L. Ed. 1120 (1930).

Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction require location and nexus. - Admiralty and general maritime jurisdiction require a showing of both location in navigable waters as well as a nexus to traditional maritime activity. Cochran v. E.I. duPont de Nemours, 933 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1035, 112 S. Ct. 881 , 116 L. Ed. 2 d 785 (1992).

Only one jurisdiction conferred under "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction". - Although there is no question but that originally the words "admiralty" and "maritime" were not identical in meaning, there is no question but that there was one jurisdiction given by the phrase "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." Renew v. United States, 1 F. Supp. 256 (S.D. Ga. 1932).

What constitutes "navigable waters". - Strom Thurmond Lake does not constitute "navigable waters" as that term is used for invoking admiralty jurisdiction. Seymour v. United States, 744 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. Ga. 1990).

Necessarily, the word "affecting" must be given its reasonable and sensible meaning in light of purposes of Constitution. Farnsworth v. Sanford, 33 F. Supp. 400 (N.D. Ga.), aff'd, 115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 586, 61 S. Ct. 1109 , 85 L. Ed. 1541 (1941).

Under facts, case not one "affecting" foreign ministers. - Because two Japanese officials named in an indictment were not prosecuted, nor their persons in any manner subjected to threats, arrest, punishment, or any control whatsoever, nor their property in any manner interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, nor were they called upon to do anything whatsoever, and their prosecution or conviction was in no way necessary to the establishment of the case against petitioner, the case against petitioner was not one "affecting" foreign ministers. Farnsworth v. Sanford, 33 F. Supp. 400 (N.D. Ga.), aff'd, 115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 586, 61 S. Ct. 1109 , 85 L. Ed. 1541 (1941).

Jurisdiction of trial court over case involving foreign official. - U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 1 was not intended to deny a trial court jurisdiction, even if it should appear from the evidence that a foreign minister was involved in any manner, whether innocently or criminally and however slightly. It was meant merely to prevent any interference with the person or property of such ministers. Farnsworth v. Sanford, 33 F. Supp. 400 (N.D. Ga.), aff'd, 115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 586, 61 S. Ct. 1109 , 85 L. Ed. 1541 (1941).

Jurisdiction over aliens. - Under U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over a permanent resident alien residing within the district and his habeas corpus petition which alleged deprivation of liberty without due process based on the prolonged determination of his deportation proceedings. Grodzki v. Reno, 950 F. Supp. 339 (N.D. Ga. 1996).

Federal restriction of jurisdiction of state courts. - The power reserved to the states under the Constitution to provide for the determination of controversies in their courts may be restricted by federal district courts only in obedience to Congressional legislation in conformity with U.S. Const., art. III. Hughes v. District Att'y, 436 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914, 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L. Ed. 2 d 656 (1971).

Federal jurisdiction of criminal liability under state law. - The arrest by the federal courts of the processes of criminal law within the states, and the determination of questions of criminal liability under state law by a federal court of equity, are to be supported only on a showing of danger of irreparable injury both great and immediate. Hughes v. District Att'y, 436 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914, 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L. Ed. 2 d 656 (1971).

In diversity case, federal court must be sensitive to doctrinal trends of state law, and the policies which inform the prior adjudications by the state courts. Timms v. Verson Allsteel Press Co., 520 F. Supp. 1147 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Jurisdiction to issue writ of attachment against businesses aboard vessel. - A federal court had the authority, under its inherent power to apply traditional maritime law, to issue a writ of attachment against bankers and stores located aboard a vessel; it did not have to rely on any grant of authority under Rule B(1), Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claim Rules, governing attachments. Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. de Navegacion, 773 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1985).

Preliminary services contract outside admiralty jurisdiction. - If the subject matter of an agency agreement deals with preliminary services, that contract is not a maritime contract and is outside the admiralty jurisdiction. The fact that plaintiff in an in rem proceeding claimed a lien on a vessel for performance of those services under the Federal Maritime Lien Act did not change the character of those services or create in the district court the admiralty jurisdiction that was otherwise lacking. E.S. Binnings, Inc. v. M/V Saudi Riyadh, 815 F.2d 660 (11th Cir. 1987).

Racial discrimination cases. - In a case against university officials involving a race discrimination claim, the critical inquiry for standing purposes was whether the plaintiff's application had actually been treated differently at some stage in the admissions process on the basis of race. If so, then the plaintiff had not competed on an equal footing with other applicants outside plaintiff's racial classification, and standing should have been conferred regardless of whether race was ultimately a factor in the decision to reject the application. Conversely, if the plaintiff's application was never actually treated differently because of race, then the fact that race may have been a consideration in assessing other applicants at a different stage of the process would not by itself confer standing. Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys., 247 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001).

2. Cases and Controversies

Controversy in the constitutional sense means one that is appropriate for judicial determination. A justiciable controversy is thus distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character. There must be a concrete case admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged. Southern Ry. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 223 F. Supp. 296 (M.D. Ga. 1962), aff'd, 324 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1963).

U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 1 limits judicial power of federal courts to decision of "cases" and "controversies." The words have an iceberg quality, containing beneath their surface simplicity, submerged complexities which go to the very heart of the constitutional form of government. Embodied in the words "cases" and "controversies" are two complementary but somewhat different limitations. In part, those words limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process; and in part those words define the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. Justiciability is the term of art employed to give expression to this dual limitation placed upon federal courts by the case and controversy doctrine. Mathews v. Massell, 356 F. Supp. 291 (N.D. Ga. 1973); Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 96 S. Ct. 1251 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 444 (1976).

Case or controversy requirement in class action. - To satisfy the case or controversy requirement, there must not only be a named plaintiff who has such a case or controversy at the time the complaint is filed and at the time the class action is certified by the district court, but there must also be a live controversy at the time the Supreme Court reviews the case. The controversy may exist, however, between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot. Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 96 S. Ct. 1251 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 444 (1976).

Article III courts have jurisdiction over actual controversies; they are not permitted luxury of issuing advisory opinions. Wilson v. Zarhadnick, 534 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1976).

Actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate or certiorari review, and not simply on date action is initiated. McRae v. Hogan, 576 F.2d 615 (5th Cir. 1978).

Authority to decide moot or abstract issues. - Because the judicial power conferred by Art. III depends upon the existence of cases or controversies, federal courts lack authority to decide moot questions or abstract propositions or issues that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. McRae v. Hogan, 576 F.2d 615 (5th Cir. 1978).

Mootness doctrine does not apply when challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and there is a reasonable expectation that some complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Although the power of federal courts is limited to justiciable or live controversies, a judicially carved exception to the mootness doctrine applies when a claim is capable of repetition yet evades review. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 454 F. Supp. 289 (N.D. Ga. 1978).

Existence of controversy demonstrated by showing of threats of criminal prosecution. - While the availability of declaratory relief in a federal challenge to a state criminal statute is not precluded merely because a plaintiff has not made the required showing for injunctive relief, so long as threats of prosecution are not imaginary, speculative, or chimerical, the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of an Art. III controversy. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 621 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1980), rev'd on other grounds, 673 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1982).

Basic test for determining whether litigant alleges case or controversy is whether conflicting contentions of parties present real and substantial controversy between persons having adverse legal interests, a dispute that is definite and concrete. Western Bus. Sys. v. Slaton, 502 F. Supp. 746 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

There can be no case or controversy where parties seek adjudication of only political question, or merely seek advisory opinion, or where the litigation presents merely an abstract, academic, or hypothetical question, or where the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by subsequent developments, or where the plaintiff has no standing to maintain the action. Western Bus. Sys. v. Slaton, 502 F. Supp. 746 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Controversy must be definite and concrete, touching legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests; it must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical statement of facts. Federal Election Comm'n v. Lance, 635 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 453 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 3151 , 69 L. Ed. 2 d 999 (1981).

Federal courts do not decide abstract, hypothetical, or contingent questions. This is but another way of stating the requirement for a justiciable case or controversy under U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 1. Halder v. Standard Oil Co., 642 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1981).

Justiciable controversy is distinguished from dispute merely hypothetical or abstract in nature; it must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of conclusive character, not an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical statement of facts. Halder v. Standard Oil Co., 642 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1981).

District courts lack jurisdiction to express legal opinions based upon hypothetical or academic facts. It is not the function of a United States District Court to sit in judgment on questions which today may readily be imagined, but may never in fact come to pass. Mere predictions of what may or may not occur cannot confer jurisdiction on a court to render an advisory opinion relating to those predictions. Halder v. Standard Oil Co., 642 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1981).

Establishing existence of case or controversy. - The existence of a case or controversy is established if there is "sufficient immediacy and reality" to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Rights of parties before court must be at issue. - Article III of the Constitution conditions the exercise of federal judicial power upon the existence of a case or controversy. As a result of Article III's proscription, federal courts are without authority to decide questions which cannot affect the rights of the parties before the court. Afro-American Patrolmen's League v. City of Atlanta, 817 F.2d 719 (11th Cir. 1987).

Nature of mootness doctrine. - An action that has become moot does not present a justiciable case or controversy within the meaning of U.S. Const., art. III. A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation, such as where there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will occur again or where interim relief or events have eradicated the effects of the alleged violation. Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687 (11th Cir. 1987).

Matters that are resolved or that have come to an end during litigation in a United States court, cease to be part of the "case" or "controversy" and become moot - unless such matters are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 630 F. Supp. 344 (M.D. Ga. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 812 F.2d 687 (11th Cir. 1987), appeal dismissed after remand, 804 F. Supp. 1547 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

Capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to mootness doctrine. - Because the duration of a preliminary order reinstating an employee under § 405 of the Surface Transportation Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. App. § 2305, was too short for the employer's challenge to be fully litigated, yet it could reasonably be expected that the employer would be subjected to similar preliminary orders in the future, the controversy between the employer and the Secretary of Labor as to the constitutional adequacy of the secretary's procedures prior to the issuance of the preliminary reinstatement order fell within the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252, 107 S. Ct. 1740 , 95 L. Ed. 2 d 239 (1987).

The federal court may exercise jurisdiction in cases if the conduct complained of is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Chris C. v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 780 F. Supp. 804 (N.D. Ga. 1991), aff'd, 968 F.2d 25 (11th Cir. 1992).

Demonstration of direct injury. - A plaintiff 's request for injunctive relief fails to satisfy this section's "case or controversy" requirement if the plaintiff does not demonstrate that the plaintiff has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury. McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 572 F. Supp. 1401 (N.D. Ga. 1983), appeal dismissed, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir. 1984).

Unconstitutional statute interfering with plaintiff 's normal conduct. - An anticipatory attack is appropriate if the allegedly unconstitutional statute interferes with the way the plaintiff would normally conduct one's affairs. American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Suit brought by juror in state court murder trial against the presiding judge, claiming that the judge violated constitutional rights by singling the juror out in open court, after the verdict, as the only juror to vote against the death penalty and by commenting about the juror in a published interview, and seeking declaratory relief, failed to satisfy the threshold "case or controversy" requirement, no allegation being made that such conduct by the judge would be continued. Emory v. Peeler, 756 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1985).

Temporary restraining order where obscenity statute not in issue. - Because there was no state obscenity enforcement action concerning a particular issue of a magazine, and because the complaint of the magazine's publisher sought no ultimate relief, by way of either injunction or declaration, but only a temporary restraining order, there was no "case or controversy" to authorized federal court jurisdiction. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Webb, 594 F. Supp. 1186 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Plaintiffs demonstrated existence of requisite "case or controversy". - See American Booksellers Ass'n v. Webb, 590 F. Supp. 677 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Dispute over ownership and possession of documents which the FBI had provided to a city satisfied the requirement of a case or controversy, even though plaintiff federal government and city defendants had both previously sought to prevent dissemination of the documents. United States v. Napper, 694 F. Supp. 897 (N.D. Ga. 1988), aff'd, 887 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1989).

Claims for reinstatement and front pay were moot because claimant had already had former job reinstated and reinstatement and front pay are alternative, rather than cumulative, remedies. Morris v. Roche, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Ga. 2002).

3. Standing and Ripeness

Essence of standing questions. - As part of the case or controversy requirement, a litigant must have "standing" before he may bring a lawsuit in federal court. The essence of a standing question is whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for the illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687 (11th Cir. 1987).

Ripeness doctrine involves both jurisdictional limitations imposed by U.S. Const., art. III's requirement of a case of controversy and prudential considerations arising from problems of prematurity and abstractness that may present insurmountable obstacles to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, even though jurisdiction is technically present. Johnson v. Sikes, 730 F.2d 644 (11th Cir. 1984).

Standing to attack tax statute. - A taxpayer who is not affected and thus not harmed by an alleged deficiency in a tax statute is not in a position to attack its constitutionality on the ground that such effect is unconstitutional. Lott Inv. Corp. v. Gerbing, 242 Ga. 90 , 249 S.E.2d 561 (1978).

One to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional. Lott Inv. Corp. v. Gerbing, 242 Ga. 90 , 249 S.E.2d 561 (1978).

One who would strike down state statute as violative of federal Constitution must show that the person is within class of persons with respect to whom the Act is unconstitutional and that the alleged unconstitutional feature injures the person. Lott Inv. Corp. v. Gerbing, 242 Ga. 90 , 249 S.E.2d 561 (1978).

Plaintiff who challenges a state practice must demonstrate realistic danger of sustaining direct injury from its application. Western Bus. Sys. v. Slaton, 502 F. Supp. 746 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Important factor in considering ripeness is whether the tendered issue involves uncertain and contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. Federal Election Comm'n v. Lance, 635 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 453 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 3151 , 69 L. Ed. 2 d 999 (1981).

Standing under establishment clause. - As to scope of the establishment clause of the first amendment and ability to demonstrate Article III standing thereunder, see American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Standing to attack campaign finance system. - Individual citizens eligible to vote in Georgia elections, former and future candidates for state office, and organizations whose members are citizens eligible to vote in Georgia elections lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment stating that the state campaign finance system violates their rights under the United States and Georgia Constitutions. Georgia State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Cox, 183 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 1999).

Standing to seek injunctive relief against city and police. - The plaintiff in a federal civil rights action had no standing to seek injunctive relief against a city and its police officers respecting certain allegedly unconstitutional practices, because the plaintiff failed to show that the plaintiff would have another encounter with the police and would again be subjected to unconstitutional treatment. Lambert v. McFarland, 612 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Standing to challenge government-sponsored religious statements. - City residents and taxpayers had standing to challenge the display of a city seal used both on city stationery and to emboss official documents, since a non-economic injury which results from a party's being subjected to unwelcome religious statements can support a standing claim. Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687 (11th Cir. 1987).

Standing to contest forfeiture. - In order to contest a forfeiture, a claimant must first demonstrate a sufficient interest in the property to give the claimant Article III standing; otherwise, there is no "case or controversy," in the constitutional sense, capable of adjudication in the federal courts. United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency, 816 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987).

Standing to challenge government's timber cutting policy. - In order for timber purchasers to have standing to bring an action challenging the government's timber cutting policy, they were required to meet the minimal Article III requirement of personally suffering an actual or threatened injury due to the government's allegedly illegal conduct. Their injury must have been fairly traceable to the government's actions and redressable by order of the court. Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 736 F. Supp. 267 (N.D. Ga. 1990), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 993 F.2d 800 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040, 114 S. Ct. 683 , 126 L. Ed. 2 d 651 (1994).

Standing to contest constitutionality of statutory penalty. - Defendant who was sentenced to less than the maximum penalty provided by the sodomy statute lacked standing to contest whether such maximum penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. King v. State, 265 Ga. 440 , 458 S.E.2d 98 (1995).

Internal Revenue Service regulations. - Institute that certifies those who offer tax service to the public failed in its attempt to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from enforcement of a directive prohibiting the use of the term "certified" by an individual who practices as an "enrolled agent" for the Internal Revenue Service; the institute failed to establish that the directive placed an unconstitutional burden on its first amendment rights in that it did not show any instance of threatened enforcement action by the Internal Revenue Service and did not show a concrete factual situation sufficient to establish a case in controversy. Institute of Certified Practitioners, Inc. v. Bentsen, 874 F. Supp. 1370 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

Standing to challenge prison policy. - An inmate does not have standing to assert the first amendment rights of prison guards relative to a prison policy prohibiting its employees from communicating directly with the parole board on behalf of prisoners. Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1045, 115 S. Ct. 641 , 130 L. Ed. 2 d 546 (1994).

Teacher had standing to challenge Moment of Quiet Reflection Act. - Plaintiff's status as a teacher, the plaintiff's objection to implementing the moment of silence in the classroom, and the plaintiff's subsequent suspension and termination were sufficient to afford standing to challenge the Moment of Quiet Reflection in Schools Act. Bown v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 895 F. Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff'd, 112 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1997).

Bailee of currency may challenge forfeiture. - The bailee of an amount of currency, who was in constructive possession of the currency when it was seized, had Article III standing to contest forfeiture of the currency. United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency, 816 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987).

Uninjured plaintiff lacks standing in antitrust action. - Plaintiff, a generator of electricity, had no standing to sue under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, for alleged antitrust violations resulting from wholesale power sales contract requiring members of wholesaler to purchase all power therefrom, because plaintiff suffered no injuries. Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 643 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Ga. 1986), aff'd, 844 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988).

Conversion of bankruptcy proceeding. - There was no case or controversy, and thus no federal jurisdiction, because debtor rendered moot Chapter 7 discharge by converting the bankruptcy proceeding to Chapter 13, and because the possibility of debtor's reconversion to Chapter 7 was not ripe for adjudication. Mann v. Hahn, 167 Bankr. 693 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994).

Summary judgment. - Once it is determined that some of the plaintiffs have standing, standing exists for purposes of determining that a case or controversy is before the court under Article Three of the Constitution, but if it is clear that a plaintiff is without standing to maintain the action, summary judgment in favor of defendant on this ground is appropriate. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 349 v. City of Rome, 682 F. Supp. 522 (N.D. Ga. 1988).

Standing in bankruptcy proceeding. - Though corporation holding second security deed on debtor's property lacked standing to recover under Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), corporation did have standing to seek other relief, including actions to initiate contempt proceedings or to seek declaration that defendant's foreclosure was void, in action against defendant, who held first priority security deed and whose advertising of property for foreclosure violated automatic stay. Barnett Bank v. Trust Co. Bank (In re Ring), 178 Bankr. 570 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995).

Standing to assert violation of "one person, one vote" rule. - In an action against the state, its state legislative bodies, the Fulton County House and Senate delegations, other unspecified local legislative delegations, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, and other state government officials alleging that the method by which the Georgia General Assembly enacted "local legislation" violated the principle of "one person, one vote," the plaintiffs, who were residents of and registered voters in unincorporated Fulton County, had standing on the basis of their entitlement to full and equal representation without invidious discrimination. DeJulio v. Georgia, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (N.D. Ga. 2001).

State flag. - African-American citizen's argument that the state flag, incorporating the stars and bars of the Confederate flag, compelled the citizen to be the courier of an ideological message that the citizen found morally objectionable failed because the flag on its face did not promulgate a sufficiently clear message of discrimination and because the record contained no evidence that the citizen was forced to acknowledge the flag in any way. Coleman v. Miller, 885 F. Supp. 1561 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff'd, 117 F.3d 527 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1011, 118 S. Ct. 1199 , 140 L. Ed. 2 d 328 (1998).

Standing not found. - In order to satisfy Article III's case or controversy requirement, a party must have standing to bring a case. Since the injury that plaintiffs allege, namely the monies lost as a result of the failure to perfect the security interest, is too hypothetical to constitute injury in fact, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a motion for class certification in their suit against the U.S. Bank. U.S. Bank's suit against other banking institutions may have the effect of recouping all funds lost as a result of the failure to perfect, thereby nullifying any injury that U.S. Bank's actions would have had on the bondholders. As the outcome of an existing suit could effectively eliminate any injury suffered by the bondholders, plaintiffs have failed to adequately demonstrate that they suffered actual, as opposed to conjectural or hypothetical, injury in fact. In re S. Fulton Hosp. Certificate Holder Litig., F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2003).

4. Pendent Jurisdiction

Federal district courts may decline jurisdiction of state claim if goals of judicial economy and convenience and fairness to litigants would not be furthered. Davis v. Griffin-Spalding County Bd. of Educ., 445 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

Requirements for pendent jurisdiction. - If a federal claim has substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, and both the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, but where, if considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff's claims are such that the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole. Davis v. Griffin-Spalding County Bd. of Educ., 445 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

Pendent jurisdiction, in the sense of judicial power, exists whenever there is a claim arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional case. Pope v. City of Atlanta, 240 Ga. 177 , 240 S.E.2d 241 (1977), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 936, 99 S. Ct. 1281 , 59 L. Ed. 2 d 494 (1979).

Pendent jurisdiction relates to issues of which federal court would not have jurisdiction if raised independently of federal claim. Bailey v. Wilkes, 162 Ga. App. 410 , 291 S.E.2d 418 (1982).

If federal court would have refrained from or been precluded from exercising pendent jurisdiction over state claims, then subsequent suit in state court would not be barred by res judicata. Bailey v. Wilkes, 162 Ga. App. 410 , 291 S.E.2d 418 (1982).

Limitations on federal court jurisdiction. - Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, due regard for the constitutional allocation of powers between the state and federal systems requires a federal court scrupulously to confine itself to the jurisdiction conferred on it by Congress and permitted by the Constitution. In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 949, 101 S. Ct. 1410 , 67 L. Ed. 2 d 378 (1981).

Federal court has pendent jurisdiction over state claim not otherwise cognizable in that tribunal if and only if it has jurisdiction over the federal claim. Bailey v. Wilkes, 162 Ga. App. 410 , 291 S.E.2d 418 (1982).

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over state case. - Even after entry of final judgment, the constitutional balance of policies that underlies the Art. III grant of judicial power impels the vacation of that judgment and remand to the state court having jurisdiction when it is determined that the federal court was without power to act because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case. In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 949, 101 S. Ct. 1410 , 67 L. Ed. 2 d 378 (1981).

There are three factors for a federal district court to consider in deciding whether or not to abstain: (1) whether the disposition of a question of state law involved in the case can eliminate or narrow the scope of the federal constitutional issue; (2) whether the state law question presents difficult, obscure, or unclear issues of state law; and (3) whether a federal decision could later conflict with subsequent state court resolutions concerning the same regulatory program or scheme, thus engendering more confusion. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 621 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1980).

Effect of dismissal of federal claim. - Because the federal court dismissed appellant's federal claim, there was nothing from which it could be urged that appellant's state claim would have been pendent. There otherwise being no federal jurisdiction, the federal court would not have been a competent tribunal to hear appellant's state claims. Bailey v. Wilkes, 162 Ga. App. 410 , 291 S.E.2d 418 (1982).

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court over cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls is not exclusive. The words of the Constitution do not make the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court exclusive, and they leave Congress free, not to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but to give concurrent jurisdiction to the lower courts. Farnsworth v. Sanford, 115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 586, 61 S. Ct. 1109 , 85 L. Ed. 1541 (1941).

Validity of concurrent jurisdiction of district court. - In a case in which a former attache to an embassy was tried and convicted for conspiracy under the Espionage Act, 50 U.S.C. § 31 et seq. (repealed by 62 Stat. 862, effective Sept. 1, 1948), there was no unconstitutional intrusion on the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and exercise of jurisdiction by a district court, which had concurrent jurisdiction by the terms of an Act of Congress, was valid. Farnsworth v. Sanford, 115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 586, 61 S. Ct. 1109 , 85 L. Ed. 1541 (1941).

Judicial status of former attache. - An attache to an embassy is a public minister, but only so long as the attache is attached to the embassy. When the attache ceases to be attached and returns to the attache's own country, the attache is no longer entitled to diplomatic immunity and a case against the attache afterwards instituted does not affect an ambassador or minister within the meaning of the Constitution. Farnsworth v. Sanford, 115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 586, 61 S. Ct. 1109 , 85 L. Ed. 1541 (1941).

Original habeas petitions. - The federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 does not deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain original habeas petitions. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 116 S. Ct. 2333 , 135 L. Ed. 2 d 827 (1996).

Trial by Jury

There is nothing in Constitution of United States requiring states to provide jury of 12 in trial of criminal cases, though the Constitution does require the federal courts to have that number. Trial by jury in a federal court means a trial by jury as understood and applied at common law, and includes all the essential elements as they were recognized in this country and in England when the Constitution was adopted. Among those elements was a jury composed of 12 persons, neither more nor less. Coates v. Lawrence, 46 F. Supp. 414 (S.D. Ga. 1942), aff'd, 131 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 759, 63 S. Ct. 532 , 87 L. Ed. 1132 (1943).

No freedoms, including freedoms of speech and press, are absolute, and liberty of press is subordinate to independence of judiciary and the proper administration of justice. The latter is necessarily true, for only in the courts can freedom of the press and other constitutional rights be preserved. The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary through which that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 216 Ga. 399 , 116 S.E.2d 580 (1960).

Press should be given widest latitude possible in exercise of its freedom that is consonant with orderly administration of justice, trial by a fair and impartial jury, and the freedom and independence of the courts in the exercise of their constitutional rights and duties. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 216 Ga. 399 , 116 S.E.2d 580 (1960).

Press interference with trial of criminal case by impartial jury. - A responsible press, appreciating as it must the great power of the press in a democratic society, should refrain from publishing and distributing news articles which, in the normal course of events would, or which it could reasonably anticipate would, interfere with the trial of a criminal case by an impartial jury; and to do so may subject it to punishment for contempt of court. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 216 Ga. 399 , 116 S.E.2d 580 (1960).

Defendant newspaper corporation would not be required to have reasonably anticipated that publication and distribution of articles regarding defendant would have come to the attention of the jurors or have interfered with the trial of the case by an impartial jury; for they had a right to expect that the jury would have been kept together until the conclusion of the trial or otherwise properly instructed upon being permitted to disperse. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 216 Ga. 399 , 116 S.E.2d 580 (1960).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Right to jury trial in case of seizure of property alleged to be illegally used, 17 A.L.R. 568 ; 50 A.L.R. 97 .

Power of the state to create and enforce liens on ships for a nonmaritime tort, 20 A.L.R. 1095 .

Workmen's Compensation Act: applicability of state compensation Act to injury within admiralty jurisdiction, 25 A.L.R. 1029 ; 31 A.L.R. 518 ; 56 A.L.R. 352 .

Alienage of party as affecting right of removal of suit on ground of diverse citizenship, 49 A.L.R. 1226 .

Right to jury trial in will contest, 62 A.L.R. 82 .

Jurisdiction of state courts of actions in relation to interstate shipments, 64 A.L.R. 333 .

Nature and extent of review upon appeal of causes in admiralty, 103 A.L.R. 775 .

Waiver of right to jury trial as operative after expiration of term during which it was made, or as regards subsequent trial, 106 A.L.R. 203 .

Right of user of gasoline or other commodity to question validity of a statute or ordinance imposing a tax upon dealer, 125 A.L.R. 734 .

Citizenship of executor or administrator as test of diversity of citizenship for purposes of jurisdiction of federal court, 136 A.L.R. 938 .

Right of defendant to waive right of trial by jury where he is not represented by counsel, 143 A.L.R. 445 .

What actions arise under Constitution, laws, and treaties of United States; general principles, 12 A.L.R.2d 5.

May federal court, acquiring jurisdiction because of federal question but deciding such question adversely to party invoking jurisdiction, decide non-federal questions, 12 A.L.R.2d 695.

Federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction where one of the states in which multistate corporation party litigant is alleged to be incorporated is also state of citizenship of opponent, 27 A.L.R.2d 745.

Mandamus or prohibition as remedy to enforce right to jury trial, 41 A.L.R.2d 780.

Withdrawal of waiver of right to jury trial in criminal case, 46 A.L.R.2d 919.

Anticipatory relief in federal courts against state criminal prosecutions growing out of civil rights activities, 8 A.L.R.3d 301.

Modern status of the rules as to immunity of foreign sovereign from suit in federal or state courts, 25 A.L.R.3d 322.

Choice of law in actions arising from airplane crash in territorial waters of state, 39 A.L.R.3d 196.

Validity and efficacy of accused's waiver of unanimous verdict, 97 A.L.R.3d 1253.

Waiver after not guilty plea, of trial in felony cases, 9 A.L.R.4th 695.

Paternity proceedings: right to jury trial, 51 A.L.R.4th 565.

What is "a separate and independent claim or cause of action" within 28 USCS § 1441(c) which permits nonresident codefendant to remove case from state to federal court, 58 A.L.R. Fed. 458.

Methods other than arrest of vessel for obtaining an rem jurisdiction in admiralty, 95 A.L.R. Fed. 225.

Admiralty jurisdiction over contracts for services in connection with off-shore drilling operations, 114 A.L.R. Fed. 623.

Section 3. [Treason, Proof and Punishment]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

Cross references. - Georgia law against treason, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XIX and § 16-11-1 .

Georgia law proscribing the corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate by virtue of a conviction, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XX.

Law reviews. - For article, "Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930," see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986). For comment, "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis," see 36 Emory L.J. 285 (1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Civil effects of sentence to life imprisonment, 139 A.L.R. 1308 .

ARTICLE IV.

Sec.

Law reviews. - For article, "Conflict of Laws Structure and Vision: Updating a Venerable Discipline," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015). For comment, "Civil Liberty or National Security: The Battle Over IPhone Encryption," see 33 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 485 (2017).

Section 1. [Faith and Credit among States]

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Cross references. - Full faith and credit given to acts and proceedings of another state generally, § 1-3-9 .

Qualified credit given where alimony is in issue, §§ 19-6-26 , 19-6-27 .

Full faith and credit to orders of other states pursuant to Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 19-9-93 .

Manner of proving Acts and proceedings of another state, § 24-7-24.

Law reviews. - For article, "Some Constitutional Problems and the Conflict of Laws and Statutes of Limitation," see 7 J. of Pub. L. 120 (1958). For article discussing convergence of standards governing limits of state's personal jurisdiction and applicability of state substantive law, see 9 J. of Pub. L. 282 (1960). For article, "The Length of the Long Arm," see 9 J. of Pub. L. 293 (1960). For survey article on domestic relations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 113 (1982). For article discussing full faith and credit and federalism in choice of law questions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 709 (1983). For article proposing an issue-by-issue analysis for resolution of choice of law questions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 731 (1983). For article, "Enforcing the Full Faith and Credit Clause: Congress Legislates Finality for Child Custody Decrees," see 1 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (1985). For article, "Child Custody - Jurisdiction and Procedure," see 35 Emory L.J. 291 (1986). For annual survey of law of domestic relations, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 179 (1986). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990). For annual eleventh circuit survey of constitutional law - civil, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 1075 (1992). For article, "Negotiating Tribal-State Full Faith and Credit Agreements: The Topology of the Negotiation and the Merits of the Question," see 28 Ga. L. Rev. 365 (1994). For article, "Jurisdictional Discrimination and Full Faith and Credit," see 63 Emory L. J. 1023 (2014). For article, "Faithful Parents: Choice of Childcare Parentage Laws," see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 325 (2019). For note, "Interstitial Lawmaking: Uniformity or Conformity?," see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 1235 (1981). For comment on Cooledge v. Casey, 58 Ga. App. 134 , 198 S.E. 96 (1938), see 1 Ga. B.J. 47 (1939). For comment discussing impact of full faith and credit clause upon divorce decrees, in light of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 63 S. Ct. 207 , 87 L. Ed. 279 , 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), see 5 Ga. B.J. 42 (1943). For comment regarding impact of full faith and credit clause upon divorce decrees, in light of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 63 S. Ct. 207 , 87 L. Ed. 279 (1942), see 8 Ga. B.J. 228 (1945). For comment on United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 67 S. Ct. 1355 , 91 L. Ed. 1687 (1947), holding full faith and credit clause requires forum state to give effect to statute of limitations provision of fraternal benefit society, see 10 Ga. B.J. 378 (1948). For comment on Azar v. Thomas, 206 Ga. 588 , 57 S.E.2d 821 (1950), holding foreign decree of divorce may be collaterally attacked on grounds of fraud in its procurement and lack of jurisdiction, see 13 Ga. B.J. 334 (1951). For comment on Grandville-Smith v. Grandville-Smith, 349 U.S. 1, 75 S. Ct. 553 , 99 L. Ed. 773 (1955), analyzing due process aspects of divorce jurisdiction statutes and full faith and credit problems with divorce decrees, see 4 J. of Pub. L. 206 (1955). For comment on Watson v. Employer's Liab. Assurance Corp., 348 U.S. 66, 75 S. Ct. 166 , 99 L. Ed. 74 (1954), holding that statute allowing direct action by policy holder against insurer contrary to terms of the contract and requiring consent of the insurer to such action as a prerequisite of doing business in the state was not violative of the Constitution, see 17 Ga. B.J. 529 (1955). For comment on Tobin v. Tobin, 93 Ga. App. 568 , 92 S.E.2d 304 (1956), holding that it is no defense to an alimony judgment in a divisible divorce that one party obtained the divorce subsequent to the judgment, see 20 Ga. B.J. 118 (1957). For comment on McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S. Ct. 199 , 2 L. Ed. 2 d 223 (1957), holding that for a state to assert jurisdiction over a foreign insurance company it is sufficient for due process purposes if the contract has a substantial connection with that state, see 21 Ga. B.J. 113 (1958). For comment concerning full faith and credit ramifications of alimony decrees, in light of Connell v. Connell, 119 Ga. App. 485 , 167 S.E.2d 686 (1969), see 18 J. of Pub. L. 517 (1969). For comment on Connell v. Connell, 119 Ga. App. 485 , 167 S.E.2d 686 (1969), as to enforcement of a foreign modification of a Georgia child support decree, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 675 (1970). For comment on Whitaker v. Whitaker, 237 Ga. 895 , 230 S.E.2d 486 (1976), see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 683 (1977). For comment discussing extension of the minimum contacts concept to personal jurisdiction in divorce litigation in light of Whitaker v. Whitaker, 237 Ga. 895 , 230 S.E.2d 486 (1976), see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (1977).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Full faith and credit provision is a rule of evidence rather than of jurisdiction. FTC v. American Legal Distribs., Inc., 739 F. Supp. 1535 (N.D. Ga. 1990); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lawson, 15 F. Supp. 116 (S.D. Ga. 1936).

Full faith and credit provision is not an inexorable and unqualified command. It leaves some scope for state control within its borders of affairs which are peculiarly its own. There are limits to the extent to which the laws and policy of one state may be subordinated to those of another. Pink v. A.A.A. Hwy. Express, Inc., 314 U.S. 201, 62 S. Ct. 241 , 86 L. Ed. 152 (1941).

United States courts must give full faith and credit to judgments of state courts. Nicolson v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 50 F. Supp. 92 (S.D. Ga. 1943).

Full faith and credit clause is not binding on federal courts. FTC v. American Legal Distribs., Inc., 739 F. Supp. 1535 (N.D. Ga. 1990).

Full faith and credit clause applies only to state records and proceedings. Edmonds v. State, 201 Ga. 108 , 39 S.E.2d 24 (1946).

State courts are bound to follow decisions of Supreme Court regarding what limitations upon full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution are permissible. Woody v. Woody, 91 Ga. App. 806 , 87 S.E.2d 222 (1955).

Power of Congress to prescribe state rules of evidence. - Aside from the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, Congress would have no power to prescribe rules of evidence for state courts. Edmonds v. State, 201 Ga. 108 , 39 S.E.2d 24 (1946).

Full faith and credit clause does not apply to judgments of foreign countries. Cocke v. Truslow, 91 Ga. App. 645 , 86 S.E.2d 686 (1955).

Application only to judgments obtained within courts of the United States. - Comity alone could authorize recognition of a Mexican divorce. The general comity rule is that in a proper case the laws and judicial proceedings of one state will be enforced in another state, provided they do not involve anything immoral, contrary to public policy, or violative of the conscience of the state called upon to give them effect. It is fundamental that comity will not be applied where a divorce is obtained in a foreign state under circumstances which offend the public policy of this state as found in its Constitution and statutes and the decisions of its courts. Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361 , 31 S.E.2d 818 (1944).

English court decree accorded conclusive effect. - A decree of an English court of chancery, rendered when both parties were citizens of that realm, which adjudges that the defendant therein is liable to the plaintiff in a given sum of money, no question being raised as to the court having jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties, and there being no suggestion of fraud in its rendition, will be given conclusive effect by the courts of this state. Coulborn v. Joseph, 195 Ga. 723 , 25 S.E.2d 576 (1943).

Full faith and credit will be accorded a foreign decree only when properly proved. Benefield v. Harris, 143 Ga. App. 709 , 240 S.E.2d 119 (1977).

Manner of proving foreign judgments limited by federal statute. - A state cannot by merely failing or refusing to amend its code place greater restrictions upon a party seeking to rely on a foreign judgment than are imposed by the procedure enacted by Congress pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. Peeples v. Peeples, 103 Ga. App. 462 , 119 S.E.2d 710 (1961).

Copy of foreign judgment only required in action based thereon. - To maintain an action based on judgment from another state, it is not necessary to show an authenticated copy of the record of the entire divorce and alimony proceedings; but a prima facie case is made by pleading and proving a properly authenticated copy of the judgment itself. Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675 , 44 S.E.2d 136 (1947).

Certification of copy of foreign judgment by associate judge sufficient. - A copy of the judgment of a court of a sister state attested by the clerk of such court with a certificate by one of the judges of the court that such attestation is in due form is sufficient to authorize its admission in evidence even though the judge signing the certificate was not the chief or presiding judge of such court. Peeples v. Peeples, 103 Ga. App. 462 , 119 S.E.2d 710 (1961).

Full faith and credit clause does not compel state to adopt any particular set of rules of conflict of laws; it merely sets certain minimum requirements which each state must observe when asked to apply the law of a sister state. Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 39, 85 S. Ct. 769 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 641 (1965).

Mandatory judicial recognition of laws and legal proceedings of sister states. - The courts of this state must judicially recognize the laws of the several states, as published by authority, without proof, and properly authenticated judicial proceedings of a sister state are entitled to the same full faith and credit as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from which they are taken. Kelly v. Kelly, 115 Ga. App. 700 , 155 S.E.2d 732 (1967).

Foreign judgment entitled to same effect as foreign jurisdiction gives it. - Lawfully obtained judgments of the court of one state, when sued on or pleaded or introduced in evidence in another state are entitled to receive the same full faith, credit, and respect that they are accorded in the state where rendered. Earley v. Earley, 165 Ga. App. 483 , 300 S.E.2d 814 (1983).

Foreign judgment subject to attack for lack of jurisdiction or fraud only. - Under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution a judgment of a foreign court will be enforced by the courts of this state unless it is shown that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction of the person or subject matter or that the judgment was procured by fraud. Earley v. Earley, 165 Ga. App. 483 , 300 S.E.2d 814 (1983).

Ex parte application for letters of administration. - Georgia court was not required to give full faith and credit to any findings or presumptions made by a New Jersey court on the issue of domicile in a proceeding which amounted to no more than an ex parte application for letters of administration of an estate. Wilson v. Willard, 183 Ga. App. 204 , 358 S.E.2d 859 (1987).

Contractual provision that is not valid where made does not become part of the contract between the parties. GECC v. Home Indem. Co., 168 Ga. App. 344 , 309 S.E.2d 152 (1983).

Conviction not precluded based on notice. - While out of state convictions must be given the same faith and credit to which they are entitled in the state where they are rendered, the full faith and credit clause does not prevent Georgia from according felony status in Georgia to out-of-state misdemeanor criminal convictions in those instances where the Georgia statute provides sufficient notice to persons of ordinary intelligence than any out-of-state misdemeanor convictions that meet the specified statutory requirements will be deemed the equivalent of a felony conviction in Georgia. Thus, since the defendant was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, contrary to O.C.G.A. § 16-11-131 , based on a misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter conviction in another state, for which the maximum penalty was five years imprisonment, if the statute had provided defendant adequate notice that the defendant's misdemeanor conviction could be used as a predicate for this charge, the full faith and credit clause would not have precluded the defendant's conviction. State v. Langlands, 276 Ga. 721 , 583 S.E.2d 18 (2003).

Court of appeals erred in ruling that a physician's claims that a limited liability company (LLC) violated the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(b) , were not barred by res judicata because the physician was barred by a Texas judgment from filing an FBPA claim against the LLC in Georgia, and a Georgia court could not make its own determination regarding whether the forum selection clause in the parties' agreement precluded the filing of an FBPA claim in Georgia; there was no public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Texas judgment went to the merits of, and adversely controlled, the physician's claim that the forum selection clause was inapplicable to an FBPA claim. Amerireach.com, LLC v. Walker, 290 Ga. 261 , 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011).

Cited in Potter v. Potter, 40 Ga. App. 324 , 149 S.E. 579 (1929); O'Malley v. Wilson, 182 Ga. 97 , 185 S.E. 109 (1936); John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Yates, 184 Ga. 42 , 190 S.E. 560 (1937); Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Cortez Cigar Co., 92 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1937); Foremost Dairy Prod., Inc. v. Sawyer, 185 Ga. 702 , 196 S.E. 436 (1938); Drake v. Drake, 187 Ga. 423 , 1 S.E.2d 573 (1939); Smith v. Globe Indem. Co., 65 Ga. App. 838 , 16 S.E.2d 601 (1941); McAlhany v. Allen, 195 Ga. 150 , 23 S.E.2d 676 (1942); Coulborn v. Joseph, 195 Ga. 723 , 25 S.E.2d 576 (1943); Sanders v. Sanford, 138 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1943); Tademy v. Scott, 68 F. Supp. 556 (N.D. Ga. 1945); Jarrard v. Southeastern Shipbuilding Corp., 163 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1947); Graves v. Carter, 207 Ga. 308 , 61 S.E.2d 282 (1950); Richards v. Richards, 85 Ga. App. 605 , 69 S.E.2d 911 (1952); Hedquist v. Gottke, 209 Ga. 681 , 75 S.E.2d 18 (1953); Blood v. Earnest, 217 Ga. 642 , 123 S.E.2d 913 (1962); Watkins v. Conway, 221 Ga. 374 , 144 S.E.2d 721 (1965); Funderburg v. Wold, 117 Ga. App. 638 , 161 S.E.2d 376 (1968); Richardson v. Strickland, 225 Ga. 319 , 168 S.E.2d 146 (1969); Connell v. Connell, 119 Ga. App. 485 , 167 S.E.2d 686 (1969); Leathers v. Klebold, 227 Ga. 683 , 182 S.E.2d 423 (1971); Showalter v. Sandlin, 229 Ga. 405 , 191 S.E.2d 828 (1972); Mahler v. Paquin, 142 Ga. App. 582 , 236 S.E.2d 512 (1977); Kronitz v. Fifth Ave. Dance Studio, Inc., 242 Ga. 398 , 249 S.E.2d 80 (1978); Bailey v. London Marina, Inc., 151 Ga. App. 73 , 258 S.E.2d 738 (1979); FDIC v. Windland Co., 245 Ga. 194 , 264 S.E.2d 11 (1980); Hayes v. Hayes, 248 Ga. 526 , 283 S.E.2d 875 (1981); City of Alma v. Benham, 170 Ga. App. 143 , 316 S.E.2d 477 (1984); Wilson v. Mills, 172 Ga. App. 328 , 323 S.E.2d 251 (1984); Park v. Bailey, 329 Ga. App. 569 , 765 S.E.2d 721 (2014).

Judicial Proceedings
1. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over members of class required for recognition of foreign judgment affecting them. - As a condition precedent for the application of the full faith and credit provision of the United States Constitution to the members of a class who may be affected by the judicial proceedings of another state, it must appear that such court had jurisdiction to bind the members of the class wherever located. Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. Bryant, 62 Ga. App. 167 , 8 S.E.2d 438 (1940).

Judgment of foreign court having jurisdiction controlling in other states. - This section compels that controversies be stilled so that if a state court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter, its judgment controls in other states to the same extent as it does in the state where rendered. Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U.S. 343, 62 S. Ct. 608 , 86 L. Ed. 885 (1942).

Presumption favoring jurisdiction conclusive absent adverse evidence in record. - According to the common-law rule, adhered to at the present time in most states, the presumption in favor of the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction is conclusive, and its judgment cannot be collaterally attacked if no want of jurisdiction is apparent of record. Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675 , 44 S.E.2d 136 (1947).

Decree partially invalid for want of jurisdiction. - A consent decree of a court of another state, which, in part, seeks to transfer title to realty in this state that had previously been set aside to a widowed spouse and minor children as a year's support, shows upon its face that, insofar as transferring title to realty, the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter; and, accordingly, that part of the decree is not such a judgment as comes within the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. King v. King, 203 Ga. 811 , 48 S.E.2d 465 (1948).

For purpose of acquiring in personam jurisdiction in Georgia, the term "doing business" means engaging for profit in some practice either repeatedly or possibly with the intention that the practice be repeated and does not include the making of one contract with a nonresident. Allied Fin. Co. v. Prosser, 103 Ga. App. 538 , 119 S.E.2d 813 (1961).

U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. I has no application if the foreign judgment shows on its face that there was no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and thus shows a violation of due process. Greenfield v. Chronicle Printing Co., 107 Ga. App. 442 , 130 S.E.2d 526 (1963).

Collateral attack on decree if foreign court record purports to show jurisdiction. - A decree might be collaterally attacked by proof that the court which rendered it has no jurisdiction of the parties or cause of action, even though the record of the proceedings in the foreign court purports to show jurisdiction. Logan v. Nunnelly, 128 Ga. App. 43 , 195 S.E.2d 659 (1973).

Burden of proof on party asserting lack of jurisdiction. - The burden is upon the party asserting the invalidity of an out-of-state decree to show that it is not binding, and the jurisdiction of the out-of-state court is to be presumed until it is proved by evidence or the record itself. Logan v. Nunnelly, 128 Ga. App. 43 , 195 S.E.2d 659 (1973).

Litigation of issue of jurisdiction of foreign court binding on other court. - In collateral attack on a judgment of another court respecting jurisdiction over the defendant, once it is shown that such issue was fully litigated in the original court, the judgment is binding under the full faith and credit clause. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975).

Collateral attacks on foreign judgments for want of jurisdiction. - The broad and general statement that a collateral attack upon a foreign judgment for want of jurisdiction is not barred by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is subject to exceptions. Green Acres Disct., Inc. v. Freid & Appell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 816 , 219 S.E.2d 39 (1975).

If a party is personally served that party is subject to in personam jurisdiction of courts of a foreign state and cannot collaterally attack a judgment of such court. Green Acres Disct., Inc. v. Freid & Appell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 816 , 219 S.E.2d 39 (1975).

If the question of jurisdiction is raised in foreign court and decided adversely to a party, that party may not collaterally attack this determination. If the record reveals that the personal jurisdiction issue was raised by a defendant and decided adversely to the defendant by a court of otherwise competent jurisdiction, the judgment of that court is conclusive, is res judicata, and may not be collaterally attacked. Green Acres Disct., Inc. v. Freid & Appell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 816 , 219 S.E.2d 39 (1975).

A judgment of a foreign court will be enforced by the courts of this state. However, that judgment may be collaterally attacked where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction of the person or subject matter. Yet, if the defendant fails to appear at trial but makes a post-judgment appearance and moves to set aside the judgment, the issues raised and decided adversely to the defendant in the post-judgment hearing by a foreign court of otherwise competent jurisdiction are conclusive, res judicata, and may not be collaterally attacked in the Georgia court. International Sys. v. Bladen County, 168 Ga. App. 316 , 308 S.E.2d 679 (1983).

Presumption of jurisdiction where merely dependent on existence of facts. - If the question as to the jurisdiction of the court depends merely upon the existence or nonexistence of a fact, and the judgment is otherwise regular, and the court otherwise a court of competent jurisdiction, it is to be presumed that the court found facts to exist such as warranted its assuming jurisdiction, and such finding of fact cannot be collaterally attacked. Green Acres Disct., Inc. v. Freid & Appell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 816 , 219 S.E.2d 39 (1975).

On facts, jurisdictional issue not subject to collateral attack. - Because a defendant made a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction, was fully heard, was overruled as to this objection and took no further part in the case or sought review of the adverse ruling, the judgment entered against the party on the merits was res judicata with regard to the jurisdictional issue and not subject to collateral attack on that ground when sued upon in another state. Green Acres Disct., Inc. v. Freid & Appell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 816 , 219 S.E.2d 39 (1975).

Effect of foreign statute conferring continuing jurisdiction over minor upon court granting divorce on nonresident. - The Indiana statute that confers continuing jurisdiction over the minor child upon the court that granted the divorce decree cannot confer jurisdiction on a trial court in Indiana over an out-of-state resident who does not consent to or become subject in some way to the jurisdiction of the Indiana court. Schowe v. Amster, 236 Ga. 720 , 225 S.E.2d 289 (1976).

Foreign adjudications of jurisdictional issues res judicata in other courts. - The doctrine of res judicata must be applied to questions of jurisdiction in cases arising in state courts involving the application of the full faith and credit clause where, under the law of the state in which the original judgment was rendered, such adjudications are not susceptible to collateral attack. Kingdon v. Foster, 238 Ga. 37 , 230 S.E.2d 855 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 916, 97 S. Ct. 2179 , 53 L. Ed. 2 d 226 (1977).

Personal jurisdiction of foreign court is necessary before judgment from foreign jurisdiction will be given full faith and credit. Benefield v. Harris, 143 Ga. App. 709 , 240 S.E.2d 119 (1977).

Effect of section on attacking jurisdiction of foreign courts. - Neither the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution nor any Act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, forbids or prevents an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court by which the judgment offered in evidence in another state was rendered. Masters v. ESR Corp., 150 Ga. App. 658 , 258 S.E.2d 224 (1979).

Judgment of foreign court lacking personal jurisdiction is not entitled to full faith and credit in the State of Georgia, inasmuch as a judgment of any court that lacks jurisdiction is void. Capital Bank v. Levy, 151 Ga. App. 819 , 261 S.E.2d 722 (1979).

The Mississippi rule that a surety is bound to a judgment against its principal is entitled to no extraterritorial effect in a suit against the surety in Georgia, where the surety was not a party or privy to the Mississippi litigation involving the principal. Rouse Constr., Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 750 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985).

Sole basis for precluding collateral attack on jurisdiction of foreign court. - A collateral attack upon a petition to domesticate a foreign (sister state) judgment that it was based on lack of personal jurisdiction is precluded in this state only if the defendant has appeared in the foreign court and has thus had an opportunity to litigate the issue. Maxwell v. Columbia Realty Venture, 155 Ga. App. 289 , 270 S.E.2d 704 (1980).

In a suit brought to domesticate a Pennsylvania judgment for back taxes where the record showed that the defendant appeared, by and through counsel, and contested the Pennsylvania suit on its merits, an attack on the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania court was without merit. Hopkins v. City of Philadelphia, 155 Ga. App. 534 , 271 S.E.2d 672 (1980).

Personal jurisdiction in revival action. - Because a defendant had the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state for that state to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant during the original litigation, those same contacts were sufficient to provide personal jurisdiction to the trial court for any revival action concerning the judgment entered in the course of the original litigation. Kaylor v. Turner, 210 Ga. App. 2 , 435 S.E.2d 233 (1993).

2. Choice of Law

In general. - A class of cases in which recognition of the law of the situs of the contract has been required comprises cases in which a right validly acquired under the law of the other state is set up by way of defense to an action in the forum, the law of which is opposed or contrary to the defensive matter. In such cases the requirement of the full faith and credit provisions is aided by the due process and contract provisions of the Constitution, to bring about recognition of foreign law, since enforcing the contract or other right stripped of the defensive provision valid under the applicable law would be making a new and different contract or creating a new right, and this would amount to a taking of property without due process of law, or in violation of the contract. Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga. App. 328 , 291 S.E.2d 44 (1982).

Validity, form, and effect of contracts are to be determined generally by law of place where made. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Yates, 299 U.S. 178, 57 S. Ct. 129 , 81 L. Ed. 106 (1936).

Effect on section of prosecution for possession of whiskey bearing revenue stamps from sister state only. - The offense of possessing whiskey in Georgia not bearing the required revenue stamps is not mitigated, nor is the prosecution defeated, by the fact that the whiskey bears the revenue stamps of another state; such prosecution is not a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States or of U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I. Herbert v. State, 60 Ga. App. 633 , 4 S.E.2d 843 (1939).

Rights of contractual parties governed by statutes and decisions of state where contract made. - The rights of the parties to a contract made and to be performed in another state are controlled not only by that state's pertinent statutes but by the decisions of its appellate courts construing and applying those statutes. Motz v. Alropa Corp., 192 Ga. 176 , 15 S.E.2d 237 (1941).

Nonresident policyholder subject to liabilities imposed by laws of insurance corporation's domicile. - If a resident of this state accepts a policy of insurance issued by a mutual insurance corporation of another state, by the terms of which the insured becomes a member of the corporation, the insured thereby is subject to the liabilities imposed upon its members by the laws of the domiciliary state. Gaston v. Keehn, 69 Ga. App. 500 , 26 S.E.2d 107 (1943).

Giving effect to foreign statute absent compliance by plaintiff with domestic statute. - Because plaintiff knew at time of sale of automobiles to Georgia dealer that they were to be brought into Georgia, and failed to have executed either a title retention contract or a bill of sale to secure debt and to record such an instrument, either of which, under Georgia law, would have been an appropriate step to protect his interest in the automobiles, the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution did not require, under the circumstances, that Georgia courts give extraterritorial effect to the Florida automobile title registration law. Cook Motor Co. v. Richardson, 103 Ga. App. 129 , 118 S.E.2d 502 (1961).

Extraterritorial effect of state's exclusive statutory remedy for injuries to its residents outside state. - A state can fix one exclusive remedy for personal injuries involving its residents wherever the accident happens and the full faith and credit clause requires the other states to refuse to enforce any inconsistent remedy. Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 39, 85 S. Ct. 769 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 641 (1965).

Burden of showing superiority of foreign state's interest over that of forum on party so asserting. - Every state is prima facie entitled to enforce in its own courts its own statutes, lawfully enacted. One who challenges that right, because of the force given to a conflicting statute of another state by the full faith and credit clause or for any other reason, assumes the burden of showing, upon some rational basis, that of the conflicting interests involved those of the foreign state are superior to those of the forum. Security Ins. Group v. Plank, 133 Ga. App. 815 , 212 S.E.2d 471 (1975).

Application of forum's statute absent proof of foreign statute. - In a case in which the plaintiffs sought to domesticate action in Maryland for debt against a partnership in which a Georgia resident was served by allegedly mailing to the Georgia resident a copy of the pleadings in the State of Georgia, the law of Georgia as to validity of service would apply in the absence of any proof of the Maryland statute. Maxwell v. Columbia Realty Venture, 155 Ga. App. 289 , 270 S.E.2d 704 (1980).

3. Judgments Generally

Effect given to judgments of sister state to same extent as given in sister state. - Action on a foreign judgment, being properly authenticated and rendered by a court of a sister state, is to be given the same full faith and credit in the courts of this state as it would have in the courts of the state where it was rendered. Albert v. Albert, 86 Ga. App. 560 , 71 S.E.2d 904 (1952).

Full faith and credit clause requires that judgment in one state must be given such full effect in another state as it is given by the law and usage of the state of its origin. Peeples v. Peeples, 103 Ga. App. 462 , 119 S.E.2d 710 (1961).

Foreign judgments given such effect as accorded in rendering state. - It is fundamental that under the full faith and credit clause the courts of this state are required to give only such effect to a judgment of a sister state as it would have in that state. Jackson v. Jackson, 231 Ga. 751 , 204 S.E.2d 297 (1974).

Judgments of courts of one state must be given the same faith and credit in another state as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state rendering them. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff 'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975).

Full faith and credit accorded judgments based on constitutional laws of sister states. - Full faith and credit will be accorded by Georgia to judgments rendered in sister states based upon the constitutional laws of those states. Allied Fin. Co. v. Prosser, 103 Ga. App. 538 , 119 S.E.2d 813 (1961).

Recognition of foreign judgment under review by supreme court of state rendering judgment. - This section requires courts of Georgia to give full faith and credit to a judgment of another state's court even where it is shown that the supreme court of that state has such judgment under review. Ferster v. Ferster, 220 Ga. 319 , 138 S.E.2d 674 (1964).

Under U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I, judgment of foreign court will be enforced by courts of this state. That judgment, however, may be collaterally attacked where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction of the person or subject matter or where the judgment was procured by fraud. Gordon v. Gordon, 237 Ga. 171 , 227 S.E.2d 53 (1976).

Foreign judgments entitled to full faith and credit. - Under the full faith and credit clause, a judgment of a foreign court will be enforced by the courts of this state unless it is shown that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction of the person or subject matter or that the judgment was procured by fraud. Dropkin v. Dropkin, 237 Ga. 768 , 229 S.E.2d 621 (1976); Veazey v. Veazey, 246 Ga. 376 , 271 S.E.2d 449 (1980); Paris v. Cooper, 158 Ga. App. 212 , 279 S.E.2d 507 (1981).

Courts of Georgia are required by U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I to give full faith and credit to judgments of sister states. A judgment in one state is conclusive upon the merits in every other state, but only if the court of the first state had jurisdiction. Haire v. Eide, 150 Ga. App. 52 , 256 S.E.2d 658 (1979).

Proper foreign judgments entitled to full faith and credit. - The judgment of a court of one state, when sued on, pleaded, or introduced in evidence in another state, is entitled to receive the same full faith, credit, and respect that is accorded to it in the state where rendered. If it is valid and conclusive there, it is so in all other states. Masters v. ESR Corp., 150 Ga. App. 658 , 258 S.E.2d 224 (1979).

Foreign judgment properly proved entitled to full faith and credit. - The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution requires the courts of this state to give effect to a judgment granted in a sister state when the same is properly proved in a proceeding in which it may be relevant. Melnick v. Bank of Highwood, 151 Ga. App. 261 , 259 S.E.2d 667 (1979).

Judgment rendered by competent court of another state is conclusive on merits in courts of this state when made the basis of an action or defense, and the merits cannot be reinvestigated. A foreign judgment is conclusive as to all matters which were decided or could have been heard at the time of the obtaining of the foreign judgment. Melnick v. Bank of Highwood, 151 Ga. App. 261 , 259 S.E.2d 667 (1979).

Foreign judgments given same effect as accorded in rendering state. - Under the full faith and credit clause, the Georgia courts are required to give only such effect to a foreign judgment as it would have in the foreign state. Capital Bank v. Levy, 151 Ga. App. 819 , 261 S.E.2d 722 (1979).

Foreign judgments entitled to full faith and credit conclusive on merits in forum. - Lawfully obtained judgments of the court of one state, when sued on or pleaded or introduced in evidence in another state, are entitled to receive the same full faith, credit, and respect that they are accorded in the state where rendered, and the foreign judgment is conclusive as to all matters which were decided or could have been heard at the time of the obtaining of the foreign judgment. Trammell v. Burke, 154 Ga. App. 366 , 268 S.E.2d 417 (1980).

Prerequisites of foreign judgments entitled to full faith and credit. - If a judgment sued on is complete and regular upon its face and contains recitals as to the jurisdictional facts, it is entitled to full faith and credit. Lowther v. Mathers, 147 Ga. App. 82 , 248 S.E.2d 161 (1978).

U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I makes the valid in personam judgment of one state enforceable in all other states. Williamson v. Williamson, 247 Ga. 260 , 275 S.E.2d 42 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S. Ct. 669 , 70 L. Ed. 2 d 638 (1981).

Recognition of judgment based on fraud. - There is no obligation on the part of one state to recognize a judgment rendered in another that originated in a fraudulent intention maintained and carried out on the same basis. Cochran v. Cochran, 173 Ga. 856 , 162 S.E. 99 (1931).

Decree in court of domicile of corporation is evidence in every other state that corporation is insolvent, and that a proper case exists in that state for the appointment of a receiver, and it is to be respected accordingly in obedience to the full faith and credit provision of the United States Constitution; but it is for the court to which an application for appointment of a receiver is made to decide whether the proper administration of the assets requires the appointment of a receiver. Ordinarily, in comity to the proceeding of another court of coordinate jurisdiction, it will appoint an ancillary receiver and assume administration in aid of the primary receiver. Isaac Silver & Bros. Co. v. Kalmon, 175 Ga. 244 , 165 S.E. 434 (1932).

Satisfied judgment against garnishee recognized as payment of original debt in action by original creditor. - A judgment against a garnishee, properly obtained according to the law of the state and paid, must, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, be recognized as a payment of the original debt by the courts of another state in an action brought against the garnishee by the original creditor. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Fortson, 61 Ga. App. 52 , 6 S.E.2d 594 (1939).

Foreign judgment having effect of former adjudication in matters pending in forum state. - Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in Tennessee, if properly proved, may have the effect of former adjudication in matters pending in the courts of this state. Roadway Express, Inc. v. McBroom, 61 Ga. App. 223 , 6 S.E.2d 460 (1939).

Proper foreign judgments regarding contracts of fraternal societies binding on nonresident members. - Decisions of the United States Supreme Court affecting fraternal benefit societies have universally held that a decision by a court having jurisdiction in the state where the society or company is incorporated respecting matters of interpretation of its charter or contracts is binding on members similarly situated in other states. Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. Bryant, 62 Ga. App. 167 , 8 S.E.2d 438 (1940).

Effect of judgment assessing corporation members on nonresident policyholder. - If a court of the domiciliary state of an insolvent mutual corporation having jurisdiction thereof proceeds according to the applicable statutes to determine the necessity for and the amount of an assessment against its members, such proceedings are conclusive as to the necessity for and the amount of the assessment, when asserted against a nonresident policyholder who by the express terms of his policy became a member of the corporation, although he was not made a party to said proceedings. An assessment levied by court order upon members of such a corporation, in conformity with the statutes of the state of its organization, against a nonresident member who is not a party to the proceedings, involves no want of due process and is entitled to full faith and credit so far as the necessity and amount of the assessment are concerned. Gaston v. Keehn, 69 Ga. App. 500 , 26 S.E.2d 107 (1943).

Validity of a judgment when collaterally attacked must be tried by an inspection of the judgment roll alone, and no other or further evidence on the subject is admissible, not even evidence that no notice had been given. Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675 , 44 S.E.2d 136 (1947).

Validity of foreign judgment by confession of attorney in court. - Full faith and credit is given by Georgia courts to valid judgments from other states, where such judgments do not contravene Georgia laws. A valid judgment by confession of an attorney in a court is not such a judgment as would contravene Code 1933, Ch. 110-6. Cocke v. Truslow, 91 Ga. App. 645 , 86 S.E.2d 686 (1955).

Recitation in final order that service was perfected imports absolute verity until properly controverted in the Georgia court by pleadings raising the issue that such service was not legal service and that the judgment rendered on such service would not be entitled to credit according to the law or usage of Florida. Peeples v. Peeples, 103 Ga. App. 462 , 119 S.E.2d 710 (1961).

Effect of foreign decree on one not party to original proceeding where evidence shows it to be nullity. - If the evidence of one relying upon a foreign decree conclusively shows that such decree is a nullity, the courts of this state are not required to give it full faith and credit and a person not a party to such divorce proceeding whose rights are materially and adversely affected by it may collaterally attack its validity in the courts of this state. Cole v. Cole, 221 Ga. 171 , 143 S.E.2d 637 (1965).

Proper foreign judgment conclusive on its merits in forum. - A litigant in the courts of this state relying on the judgment of a sister state in support of or in defense to an action is in general entitled to have such a judgment accorded the same full faith and credit, and no more, as it would receive in the state where rendered, and such a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction of another state is to this extent conclusive on its merits in the courts of this state. Kelly v. Kelly, 115 Ga. App. 700 , 155 S.E.2d 732 (1967).

Collateral attack of judgment of foreign court having jurisdiction on ground of fraud. - A judgment of a court of a foreign state having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties cannot be collaterally attacked in the courts of this state on the ground of fraud. Johnson v. Johnson, 115 Ga. App. 749 , 156 S.E.2d 186 (1967).

Valid judgment cannot be attacked collaterally until set aside or reversed. Costello v. Costello, 230 Ga. 40 , 195 S.E.2d 408 (1973).

Proper foreign judgment offered as evidence in forum court unimpeachable for fraud. - A judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, and apparently legal on its face, when offered as evidence in a cause pending in this state, cannot be collaterally impeached for fraud. Logan v. Nunnelly, 128 Ga. App. 43 , 195 S.E.2d 659 (1973).

Nonfinal foreign judgments not entitled to full faith and credit. - If an action is based upon a foreign judgment which is not final in the state where rendered, such judgment is not entitled to recognition under the full faith and credit doctrine. Ryle v. Ryle, 130 Ga. App. 680 , 204 S.E.2d 339 (1974).

Only final judgments accorded full faith and credit. - A judgment of a state court, in order to be given full faith and credit in another jurisdiction, must be a final judgment adjudicating the litigation in a conclusive manner. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975).

Recognition of foreign judgments subject to appeal. - The fact that a foreign judgment is subject to an appeal does not render it interlocutory within the meaning of the rule denying full faith and credit to interlocutory judgments; the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution applies as soon as a judgment is enforceable, and not merely after the time to appeal has elapsed. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975).

Judgment from which appeal has been taken without supersedeas is final judgment entitled to be accorded full faith and credit, even though the appeal is still pending in the court of the original jurisdiction. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975).

Effect of collateral attack for fraud on recognition of foreign judgment. - Full faith and credit does not have to be accorded a judgment where the collateral attack is based on its procurement through fraud. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975).

Impeachment of a foreign judgment is limited to existence of fraud that is extrinsic in its nature, that is, fraud preventing one from having a real contest of the action based on conduct or activities outside of the court proceedings themselves. Fraudulent acts that pertain to an issue involved in the original action which was litigated or could have been litigated therein may not be relitigated in another state's courts. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975).

Foreign judgment entitled to full faith and credit where issues fully and fairly litigated in original court. - A judgment is entitled to full faith and credit, even as to questions of jurisdiction, when the second court's inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment. Fidelity Std. Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 382 F. Supp. 956 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 125 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 94 (1975); Green Acres Disct., Inc. v. Freid & Appell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 816 , 219 S.E.2d 39 (1975).

When party appears and defends, judgment of court, regular upon its face, may not be attacked in the courts of this state. Green Acres Disct., Inc. v. Freid & Appell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 816 , 219 S.E.2d 39 (1975).

Effect of conflict of laws on according full faith and credit to foreign judgment. - Even if the statutory law of this state is different from that of the sister state, and even if this would prevent recovery (conceding arguendo that there is such a difference), the forum state (Georgia) must give full faith and credit to that judgment rendered by the sister state. Colodny v. Krause, 136 Ga. App. 379 , 221 S.E.2d 239 (1975).

Judgment in corporate liquidation proceedings. - Because the Delaware Chancery Court, pursuant to applicable statute, had power to wind up the affairs of a corporation that is a creature of the laws of that state, and, as part of that winding up, state court disposed of property of such company although majority stockholder was not named as party in the liquidation proceeding but was merely notified, the United States District Court properly gave full faith and credit to the state court proceeding by granting summary judgment in favor of the state court's holding, thus, effectively causing such proceeding to be enforceable against the majority stockholder. CMS Indus., Inc. v. L.P.S. Int'l, Ltd., 643 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1981).

Judgment rendered by court of another state is conclusive on merits in courts of this state when made the basis of an action and the merits cannot be reinvestigated. Flagship Bldrs., Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 143 Ga. App. 624 , 239 S.E.2d 235 (1977).

Foreign judgment conclusive on merits only if rendering court had jurisdiction. - A judgment in one state is conclusive upon the merits in every other state, but only if the court of the first state had power to pass on the merits - had jurisdiction, that is, to render the judgment. Benefield v. Harris, 143 Ga. App. 709 , 240 S.E.2d 119 (1977).

Enforcement of foreign judgments subject to collateral attack. - A judgment of a foreign court will be enforced by the courts of Georgia. That judgment, however, may be collaterally attacked where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction of the person or subject matter. Collins v. Peacock, 147 Ga. App. 424 , 249 S.E.2d 142 (1978).

Proper foreign judgment not subject to collateral attack. - A judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction of a sister state, properly authenticated, is conclusive on the merits in the courts of this state when made the basis of action and the merits cannot be reinvestigated, i.e., such a judgment is not subject to collateral attack. Sun First Nat'l Bank v. Gainesville 75, Ltd., 155 Ga. App. 70 , 270 S.E.2d 293 (1980).

Georgia is not required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize nonfinal decrees. Blue v. Blue, 243 Ga. 22 , 252 S.E.2d 452 (1979).

Only final foreign judgments entitled to full faith and credit. - To entitle the judgment of the court of a sister state to full faith and credit and to endow it with conclusive effect, the judgment must be final. Sun First Nat'l Bank v. Gainesville 75, Ltd., 155 Ga. App. 70 , 270 S.E.2d 293 (1980).

Law of state of rendition determines whether judgment is final and, if not, what issues remain subject to further determination. Sun First Nat'l Bank v. Gainesville 75, Ltd., 155 Ga. App. 70 , 270 S.E.2d 293 (1980).

Nature of final judgments. - Final judgments are such as at once put an end to the action, by declaring that the plaintiff has either entitled himself, or has not, to recover the remedy he sues for. Sun First Nat'l Bank v. Gainesville 75, Ltd., 155 Ga. App. 70 , 270 S.E.2d 293 (1980).

Allowing actions based on unsatisfied final foreign judgments. - Under the full faith and credit clause, Georgia must recognize the final and unmodifiable judgments of sister states, and permit actions for amounts due and unpaid thereunder up until the time of action. Williamson v. Williamson, 247 Ga. 260 , 275 S.E.2d 42 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S. Ct. 669 , 70 L. Ed. 2 d 638 (1981).

Modification of foreign decree modifiable by rendering state. - Modification of a sister state decree does not offend the full faith and credit clause so long as the decree is modifiable by the rendering state, because the forum state has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart from it as does the state where it was rendered. Blue v. Blue, 243 Ga. 22 , 252 S.E.2d 452 (1979).

Foreign judgment void as against public policy of forum entitled to full faith and credit. - That the North Carolina consent judgment contains a clause making it void as against the public policy of this state does not change the rule that local policy considerations must give way to this constitutional provision. Cannon v. Cannon, 244 Ga. 299 , 260 S.E.2d 19 (1979).

Foreign order void as violating Georgia public policy. - Michigan order, by facially prohibiting consultant from testifying as to matters outside the scope of any privilege, violated Georgia public policy; therefore, the full faith and credit clause did not require the federal district court in Georgia to give full effect to the Michigan court order. Williams v. GMC, 147 F.R.D. 270 (S.D. Ga. 1993).

Interpretation of foreign decree by forum enforcing it. - While a foreign decree may not be altered or modified by the courts of this state, it may be interpreted and effect given to its legal intendment by a court of this state in which an action is brought to enforce such decree. Sun First Nat'l Bank v. Gainesville 75, Ltd., 155 Ga. App. 70 , 270 S.E.2d 293 (1980).

Domestication of foreign judgment separate issue from enforcement of judgment. - Domestication in this state of a foreign judgment is a separate issue from the extent to which enforcement of that domesticable judgment will be authorized. Sun First Nat'l Bank v. Gainesville 75, Ltd., 155 Ga. App. 70 , 270 S.E.2d 293 (1980).

Foreign judgments must be domesticated. - Because a foreign judgment cannot be enforced until it is domesticated, a Georgia judgment had priority over an earlier obtained, but later domesticated, foreign judgment against the same debtor. NationsBank v. Gibbons, 226 Ga. App. 610 , 487 S.E.2d 417 (1997).

Payment is complete defense to enforcement of foreign judgment entitled to full faith and credit and domestication in this state, and the defendant may plead partial satisfaction or any other affirmative defense to the enforcement sought in an action on the domesticable judgment. Sun First Nat'l Bank v. Gainesville 75, Ltd., 155 Ga. App. 70 , 270 S.E.2d 293 (1980).

Workers' compensation award decision. - The full faith and credit clause does not require that the decision in another state that a person is no longer entitled to benefits is a bar to an award under Georgia law when jurisdiction is invoked under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-242 . Roadway Express, Inc. v. Warren, 163 Ga. App. 759 , 295 S.E.2d 743 (1982), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 464 U.S. 988, 104 S. Ct. 476 , 78 L. Ed. 2 d 675 (1983).

Discharge or payment of judgment is defense to execution of a foreign judgment. Armstrong v. Strand, 167 Ga. App. 723 , 307 S.E.2d 528 (1983).

4. Divorce and Alimony

Foreign divorce decree unentitled to recognition absent personal service on wife. - A Nevada decree, rendered without personal service of process on a spouse and therefore without personal jurisdiction over the spouse, was not entitled to enforcement in this state by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution. Cochran v. Cochran, 173 Ga. 856 , 162 S.E. 99 (1931).

Foreign alimony decree enforceable as to unpaid payments. - A decree for alimony from a sister state, providing for future monthly payments, is such a decree as is enforceable in this state under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States as to such payments as have become due and remain unpaid at the time of the rendition of the judgment in this state, although the foreign court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of modifying the judgment. Roberts v. Roberts, 174 Ga. 645 , 163 S.E. 735 (1932); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 196 Ga. 204 , 26 S.E.2d 283 (1943); McLendon v. McLendon, 66 Ga. App. 156 , 17 S.E.2d 252 (1941), later appeal, 70 Ga. App. 664 , 29 S.E.2d 97 (1944); Johnson v. Johnson, 115 Ga. App. 749 , 156 S.E.2d 186 (1967).

On facts, foreign divorce decree collaterally attackable for fraud. - A decree of divorce rendered in the State of Alabama on a bill of complaint by the husband alleging himself to be a bona fide resident of that state and the respondent to be a nonresident of the state, which was based upon appearance and pleading alone by the respondent as waiver of service and submission to the jurisdiction, may be collaterally attacked for fraud in its procurement. Durden v. Durden, 184 Ga. 421 , 191 S.E. 455 (1937).

Foreign decree obtained on service by publication not entitled to full faith and credit. - Where a decree of divorce is obtained in another state on service by publication and there is no appearance or response by the defendant, such decree is not binding on the courts of this state under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. Barnett v. Barnett, 191 Ga. 501 , 13 S.E.2d 19 (1941).

On facts, foreign decree obtained on service by publication collaterally attackable for want of jurisdiction. - Because only service upon the wife in the husband's suit for divorce in foreign state was by publication, and the wife made no appearance and contested none of the allegations of that suit, the wife had a right to collaterally attack the foreign decree upon the grounds that the court was without jurisdiction because the husband had not been a bona fide resident of the foreign state for a period of one year as required by the laws of that state to give the court jurisdiction and that the husband's representation to the court that the husband had been such a bona fide resident was false and fraudulent. Marchman v. Marchman, 198 Ga. 739 , 32 S.E.2d 790 (1945).

Foreign decree obtained without personal service on nonresident subject to collateral attack. - The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States has no application to a decree of divorce where the defendant in the divorce action was a nonresident, made no appearance, and the only service had was by publication; such a divorce decree is subject to a collateral attack showing that the court rendering the same was without jurisdiction or that the decree was procured by the perpetration of a fraud upon the court. Marchman v. Marchman, 198 Ga. 739 , 32 S.E.2d 790 (1945).

Procedure for enforcement of foreign alimony decree. - An order and decree for alimony from another state, providing for future weekly payments, is such a decree as is enforceable in Georgia under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States as to such payments as have become due and remain unpaid, when an action is brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Georgia on a judgment entered in another state for the total of the unpaid payments which have accrued to the date of the judgment rendered in such other state. Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675 , 44 S.E.2d 136 (1947).

Jurisdiction of foreign court rendering decree prima facie presumed valid. - Because the record of the proceedings and decree in the Nevada court, which the defendant offered in evidence, shows on its face that the court had jurisdiction of the plaintiff and the defendant had his residence in Nevada, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, the trial court was under a duty to accord prima facie validity to the Nevada decree; and, upon the admission of the judgment and record in that case, the burden was upon the plaintiff, if the plaintiff would escape the operation of the decree, to show that it was not binding upon the plaintiff, and such jurisdiction of the Nevada court over the cause of action and the parties is to be presumed until disproved by evidence or by the record itself. Patterson v. Patterson, 208 Ga. 7 , 64 S.E.2d 441 (1951).

Presumption rebuttable by evidence showing domicile outside foreign decree forum. - The presumption of validity of a foreign divorce decree is rebuttable by evidence of the attacking party showing a lack of domicile of the plaintiff in the foreign divorce forum; and, if the evidence shows that the plaintiff was not a bona fide resident of the foreign state at the time the divorce action was instituted, the court may decline to give full faith and credit to the decree, notwithstanding the finding of the foreign decree that he was such a resident. Patterson v. Patterson, 208 Ga. 7 , 64 S.E.2d 441 (1951).

Foreign divorce decree showing jurisdiction entitled to recognition in in-state divorce action. - An amendment to the husband's answer, in an in-state divorce action by the wife, setting up a final divorce decree from a court of foreign state, which decree showed on its face that such court had jurisdiction over the parties and the cause of action for a divorce, is prima facie entitled to respect by the courts of this state under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution. Cherry v. Cherry, 208 Ga. 213 , 65 S.E.2d 805 (1951).

Full faith and credit clause places Georgia courts under duty to accord prima facia validity to Texas divorce decree. Meeks v. Meeks, 209 Ga. 588 , 74 S.E.2d 861 (1953).

Effect of foreign divorce decree on temporary alimony order. - Full faith and credit under the Constitution of the United States does not demand that support and maintenance due the wife under a temporary alimony order of the courts of Georgia cease when a valid divorce is granted between the parties in another state. Meeks v. Meeks, 209 Ga. 588 , 74 S.E.2d 861 (1953).

Effect of pending divorce action on divorce decree procured in sister state. - The mere fact that spouse had a divorce action pending in a court in Georgia at the time he procured a Texas divorce is not sufficient to rebut the prima facia validity of the Texas decree, since whether or not there was an action pending in Georgia for the same cause was not a jurisdictional fact in the cause in Texas. Meeks v. Meeks, 209 Ga. 588 , 74 S.E.2d 861 (1953).

Mere production of copy of foreign divorce decree without more insufficient to invalidate it. - Although it is true that a Texas divorce decree may be collaterally attacked in the courts of Georgia on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction in the Texas court or fraud in the procurement of the decree, and that the Georgia courts may determine those questions for themselves, where the only evidence produced in proceeding by wife to have husband adjudged in contempt for failure to pay temporary alimony was a copy of the husband's Texas divorce decree, and no question regarding the jurisdiction of the Texas court or of fraud in the procurement of the decree is presented, the Constitution of the United States demands that the Texas decree be given full faith and credit. Meeks v. Meeks, 209 Ga. 588 , 74 S.E.2d 861 (1953).

Foreign decree obtained on personal service or by appearance of both parties valid. - If there has been personal service or if the parties both actually appear and participate in the trial by pleading and personal appearance, this court holds that a divorce decree rendered by the courts of another state, under these circumstances, is not subject to collateral attack. Smith v. Smith, 211 Ga. 615 , 87 S.E.2d 320 (1955).

Full faith and credit not accorded foreign decree subject to collateral attack. - If the only service obtained in a divorce action is by publication, when the defendant is a nonresident and does not appear and defend the action and has no actual notice of the pendency of the action, the decree is subject to attack on the ground that the court rendering the decree had no jurisdiction of the parties, or that the decree was obtained by the perpetration of a fraud upon the court rendering the decree, and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States and the Act of Congress enacted pursuant thereto, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, have no application under these circumstances. Smith v. Smith, 211 Ga. 615 , 87 S.E.2d 320 (1955).

Decree unattackable in rendering state is unattackable in any state. - If a divorce cannot be attacked for lack of jurisdiction by parties actually before the court or by strangers in the rendering state, the full faith and credit clause forbids an attack by them anywhere in the United States. A state by virtue of U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I must give full faith and credit to a foreign divorce decree by barring either party to that divorce who has been personally served or who has entered a personal appearance from collaterally attacking the decree, where the decree is not susceptible to such collateral attack in the courts of the state which rendered it. Woody v. Woody, 91 Ga. App. 806 , 87 S.E.2d 222 (1955).

Elements essential to foreign divorce decree for full faith and credit. - The decisions of this court up to this time have uniformly held that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States and the Act of Congress enacted in pursuance thereof, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, have no application to a decree of divorce if the defendant in the divorce action was a nonresident, made no appearance, and the only service had was by publication, and that such a divorce decree is subject to a collateral attack showing that the court rendering the same was without jurisdiction or that the petitioner therein procured the decree by the perpetration of a fraud upon the court rendering the same. But if there has been personal service or the defendant appears and defends, a decree of divorce rendered by a court of another state and regular upon its face is not subject to attack in the courts of this state. Wade v. Wade, 213 Ga. 886 , 102 S.E.2d 557 (1958).

Foreign alimony decree subject to revocation or modification unenforceable. - A decree for alimony of a sister state, providing for future monthly payments, which by its own terms is subject to be revoked or modified as to the amount to be paid thereunder by the court rendering such decree, is not enforceable in this state under U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I or upon principles of comity. Ferster v. Ferster, 219 Ga. 543 , 134 S.E.2d 600 (1964).

Effect of foreign divorce on support and maintenance order. - Full faith and credit under the Constitution of the United States does not demand that support and maintenance due the spouse under an order of the courts of Georgia cease when a valid divorce is granted between the parties in another state. Spadea v. Spadea, 225 Ga. 80 , 165 S.E.2d 836 (1969).

Foreign divorce properly proved entitled to full faith and credit. - U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I requires the courts of this state to give effect to a divorce granted in a sister state when the same is properly proved in a proceeding in which it may be relevant in this state. Spadea v. Spadea, 225 Ga. 80 , 165 S.E.2d 836 (1969).

Foreign divorce decree properly rendered not subject to collateral attack. - Under U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I, a divorce decree of a sister state rendered after personal service on the defendant and after the defendant has appeared in person or by attorney and defended the same on the merits, which decree is regular upon its face, is not subject to collateral attack in the courts of this state but must be given full force and effect as if rendered by a court of this state. Joyner v. Joyner, 227 Ga. 545 , 181 S.E.2d 842 (1971).

Foreign divorce decree attacked for fraud as bar to alimony action. - The rule prevailing in this state is that a decree of divorce, obtained by a husband in another state, wherein service is perfected on the wife, a resident of this state, by publication, and in which the plaintiff in such foreign judgment is not in fact a bona fide resident of the state in which the judgment is rendered, can be attacked collaterally for fraud when offered in the courts of this state, as a bar to the wife's action for alimony. Logan v. Nunnelly, 128 Ga. App. 43 , 195 S.E.2d 659 (1973).

Ex parte divorce decree valid in other states if one spouse domiciled in forum. - An ex parte judgment that only grants a divorce is entitled to full faith and credit in other states if one of the spouses was domiciled in the forum that granted the divorce judgment. Whitaker v. Whitaker, 237 Ga. 895 , 230 S.E.2d 486 (1976).

Foreign divorce decree unimpeachable in rendering state is unimpeachable in any state. - If a decree of divorce cannot be attacked on jurisdictional grounds by parties who were actually before the court, or by their privies, or by strangers, in the courts of the state in which the decree was rendered, the full faith and credit clause precludes their attacking it in the courts of a sister state. Kingdon v. Foster, 238 Ga. 37 , 230 S.E.2d 855 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 916, 97 S. Ct. 2179 , 53 L. Ed. 2 d 226 (1977).

U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I requires courts of this state to give effect to divorce decree of sister state when properly proved. Benefield v. Harris, 143 Ga. App. 709 , 240 S.E.2d 119 (1977).

Foreign divorce decree obtained by domiciliary of rendering state by constructive service valid. - A divorce decree granted by a state to one of its domiciliaries is entitled to full faith and credit in another state even though the other spouse is given notice only through constructive service. Benefield v. Harris, 143 Ga. App. 709 , 240 S.E.2d 119 (1977).

Foreign divorce decree invalid as to nonresident on issue of alimony absent personal service. - Even though a divorce decree is entitled to full faith and credit insofar as it affects marital status, it is ineffective as to a nonresident on the issue of alimony (an in personam judgment) unless there was personal service. Benefield v. Harris, 143 Ga. App. 709 , 240 S.E.2d 119 (1977).

Actions on unsatisfied and unmodifiable foreign alimony decrees permitted. - If a decree for installment payments of alimony or child support is given in a sister state, and the decree constitutes a final and unmodifiable judgment as to amounts due and unpaid under it, the full faith and credit clause requires that Georgia permit actions for the amount due and unpaid up until the time the action is brought. Blue v. Blue, 243 Ga. 22 , 252 S.E.2d 452 (1979).

Foreign modified alimony order rendered without personal service unenforceable. - As a personal judgment for alimony cannot be rendered against a nonresident defendant upon service by publication, and accordingly, an action for modification of alimony cannot be maintained against a nonresident defendant who has not been personally served or has not waived personal service, nor can Mississippi statute which purports to grant court rendering divorce continuing jurisdiction to modify alimony award confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not consented or subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts, Mississippi modification order against resident of Georgia who was served by publication and who did not waive personal service was not entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of this state. Veazey v. Veazey, 246 Ga. 376 , 271 S.E.2d 449 (1980).

Vested right to due alimony installments entitled to full faith and credit. - Generally speaking, if a decree is rendered for alimony and is made payable in future installments, the right to such installments becomes absolute and vested upon becoming due and is protected by the full faith and credit clause, provided no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the installments. Alimony decreed to a spouse in a divorce is as much a debt of record, until the decree has been recalled, as any other judgment for money is. Williamson v. Williamson, 247 Ga. 260 , 275 S.E.2d 42 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S. Ct. 669 , 70 L. Ed. 2 d 638 (1981).

Modifiable alimony decree unenforceable. - If the law of the state in which a judgment for future alimony is rendered makes the right to demand and receive such alimony discretionary with the court that rendered the decree, to the extent that no absolute or vested right attaches to receive the installments ordered by the decree to be paid, even though no application to annul or modify the decree in respect of alimony has been made prior to installments falling due, the decree is not protected by the full faith and credit clause. Williamson v. Williamson, 247 Ga. 260 , 275 S.E.2d 42 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S. Ct. 669 , 70 L. Ed. 2 d 638 (1981).

Decrees subject to further order of court. - Georgia law distinguishes between an action to enforce an award for support rendered in connection with a divorce decree, although such award is subject to modification, and an action to enforce such award if it is not rendered in connection with a divorce decree and is made subject to "further order of the court," and will not enforce the latter judgment of a sister state. Jagiella v. Jagiella, 647 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1981).

Foreign modification of Georgia child support award requires in personam jurisdiction. - A Kentucky court would be required to have in personam jurisdiction over defendant in order to modify a Georgia award of child support. Earley v. Earley, 165 Ga. App. 483 , 300 S.E.2d 814 (1983).

When foreign divorce decree given effect. - U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I requires the courts of this state to give effect to a divorce decree of a sister state when properly proved. Tallman v. Tallman, 161 Ga. App. 447 , 287 S.E.2d 703 (1982).

Nature of action to enforce alimony decree. - The action to enforce a decree for alimony of a sister state does not make such action an alimony case; rather it is an action on a debt of record. Tallman v. Tallman, 161 Ga. App. 447 , 287 S.E.2d 703 (1982).

Judgments subject to retroactive modification lack requisite finality. - Final divorce decrees of other states are recognized under the full faith and credit clause. Even those which may be prospectively modified are properly domesticated and enforced in Georgia under principles of comity. Nevertheless, judgments of other states which may be modified retroactively lack the requisite finality to be entitled to full faith and credit. Apple v. Apple, 186 Ga. App. 325 , 367 S.E.2d 109 (1988).

Contempt action held unenforceable. - Although it was not error to domesticate 1975 and 1978 New York divorce and alimony decrees, there was no basis to enforce an action for contempt based on unpaid sums allegedly owed under those decrees, because a reduction of the sums owed to judgment, they were not enforceable in New York. Apple v. Apple, 186 Ga. App. 325 , 367 S.E.2d 109 (1988).

5. Custody and Support of Children

Foreign decree awarding custody void for lack of jurisdiction. - A father's leaving his wife and minor child in Georgia to obtain employment for himself in Michigan, and failing to provide for them, except sending them about $12.00 in two years, held to authorize a finding that the father had voluntarily relinquished parental authority over the child to the mother, thereby rendering the domicile of the child that of its mother, so that a Michigan divorce decree awarding custody of the child to the father was void for lack of jurisdiction, even though the mother filed an answer in the divorce proceeding, asking to be awarded the child; and the court was authorized to determine the habeas corpus case filed by father to regain custody without regard to the foreign judgment, and solely in view of the welfare of the child as an original proposition. Elliott v. Elliott, 181 Ga. 545 , 182 S.E. 845 (1935).

Custody decree void for lack of jurisdiction of child. - On habeas corpus by a father to recover the custody of a minor child living with the mother in Georgia, predicated upon a decree of a Michigan court dissolving the marriage and awarding the child to the father, the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution did not preclude the Georgia court from declaring the Michigan decree void for lack of jurisdiction of the child. Elliott v. Elliott, 181 Ga. 545 , 182 S.E. 845 (1935).

Foreign custody decree subject to modification in other state for welfare of child. - A decree of divorce awarding the custody of the children of the parties, rendered by the court of another state having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, shall be given full effect in this state; but such decree cannot anticipate changes which may occur in the condition of the parents, or in their character and fitness for the care of their children. Accordingly, if, in a proceeding in this state involving the custody of a child, a change is shown in the circumstances of the parties materially affecting the welfare of the child since the foreign decree, the court in the exercise of a sound discretion may protect such welfare accordingly, the same as if there has been such a change since a decree rendered in this state. If the mother and child now reside in this state, and if the father filed his petition in a superior court of this state for injunction against the mother, the court would be authorized, if there was competent evidence of a change in the condition of the parties since the decree materially affecting the child's welfare, to make a new award of custody. Kniepkamp v. Richards, 192 Ga. 509 , 16 S.E.2d 24 (1941).

Custody decree rendered without jurisdiction of mother collaterally attackable. - Although a decree in another state awarding the custody of a child to the father is conclusive as between the parties to the decree and as to the right and fitness for such custody at that time, such a judgment rendered without jurisdiction of the mother may be collaterally attacked without offending the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States. Carter v. Carter, 201 Ga. 850 , 41 S.E.2d 532 (1947).

Divorce decree awarding custody and properly rendered entitled to full faith and credit. - If the defendant appears and defends, a decree of divorce rendered by a court of another state and regular upon its face is not subject to attack in the courts of this state, and such a decree awarding custody of the children of the parties, rendered by the court of another state having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, shall be given full effect in this state. Beggs v. Beggs, 208 Ga. 415 , 67 S.E.2d 135 (1951).

Valid jurisdiction over parents confers same over minors' custody and support. - A divorce suit embraces within its scope the care and disposition of minor children, and jurisdiction over the parents confers eo ipso jurisdiction over the minors' custody and support; and if in a foreign court jurisdiction is not claimed by virtue of service by publication on a nonresident, but rests upon an answer and cross-bill filed therein by the nonresident, wherein the custody of the children and alimony for their support is put in issue, such court acquires complete jurisdiction of the marriage status and the custody of the children. Beggs v. Beggs, 208 Ga. 415 , 67 S.E.2d 135 (1951).

Foreign custody decree properly obtained entitled to full faith and credit. - A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, awarding the custody of a child to a named person, which judgment is regular on its face and unimpeached for fraud, is conclusive of the status at the time of its rendition, and will be accorded full faith and credit if introduced in proceedings in Georgia for the custody of the child. Peeples v. Newman, 209 Ga. 53 , 70 S.E.2d 749 (1952).

Any custody decree subject to modification if welfare of child at issue. - A judgment awarding the custody of a child, whether rendered by the courts of a sister state or by the courts of Georgia, may be modified upon application if it is shown that there is such a change of conditions since the rendition of the decree as will affect the welfare of the child. Peeples v. Newman, 209 Ga. 53 , 70 S.E.2d 749 (1952).

Foreign custody decree unimpeached for fraud entitled to full faith and credit. - The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction of a sister state, awarding the custody of a minor child, which is regular on its face and unimpeached for fraud, is entitled to full faith and credit in proceedings for the custody of the child in this state. Belden v. Strickland, 218 Ga. 105 , 126 S.E.2d 670 (1962).

Original foreign custody award not res judicata in proceeding for custody where child's welfare at issue. - An original custody award in a foreign court, under U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. I, is not res judicata as to a subsequent claim of custody based on changes of conditions affecting the child's welfare. Oliver v. Oliver, 225 Ga. 61 , 165 S.E.2d 863 (1969).

Duty of courts to modify foreign custody decree if change in conditions adversely affect child. - Although a decree of a court of a sister state granting custody of a child temporarily for a period of one year must be given effect by the courts of this state under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, it is nevertheless the duty of the trial courts of this state, if the issues are presented to it, to determine whether there has been a change in conditions subsequent to the entry of the previous decree which adversely affects the welfare of the child, and to determine, based on the present conditions as shown by the evidence, whether the best interests of the child dictate a change in custody. Glover v. Sink, 230 Ga. 81 , 195 S.E.2d 443 (1973).

Allowance of evidence of effect of foreign custody decree in rendering state. - In order to determine the effect of a Maryland decree in regard to child support and custody sought to be enforced by the husband in a divorce action, evidence of the effect of such decree in Maryland should be allowed and the refusal to permit the wife to introduce such evidence is error. Jackson v. Jackson, 231 Ga. 751 , 204 S.E.2d 297 (1974).

Foreign custody judgment not incident to divorce decree and without jurisdiction invalid. - If a foreign court changes or fixes custody of a child, not incident to a divorce decree, without personal jurisdiction over the parties to the action, the judgment so issued need not be recognized under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Schowe v. Amster, 236 Ga. 720 , 225 S.E.2d 289 (1976).

Child custody judgment may be entitled to recognition under former Code 1933, Ch. 5, T. 74 (see O.C.G.A. Ch. 9, T. 19) even though such judgment would not be entitled to full faith and credit. Youmans v. Youmans, 247 Ga. 529 , 276 S.E.2d 837 (1981).

Prosecution for abandonment. - Because a North Carolina divorce decree making the divorced wife responsible for the total maintenance of the children would not have barred a North Carolina prosecution of the father for abandonment, the full faith and credit clause did not have the effect of barring a criminal prosecution for abandonment in Georgia. Chapman v. State, 177 Ga. App. 580 , 340 S.E.2d 237 (1986).

Supreme Court without jurisdiction where full faith issue not raised in state court. - Because petitioner failed, in the state proceedings, to raise question of whether the United States Constitution demanded that Georgia give full faith and credit to a Florida custody decree and, the Georgia Supreme Court failed to rule on a federal issue, the United States Supreme Court was without jurisdiction on the petition for certiorari. Webb v. Webb, 451 U.S. 493, 101 S. Ct. 1889 , 68 L. Ed. 2 d 392 (1981).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Refusal to entertain an action upon a judgment rendered in another state upon a cause of action which it would have been contrary to statute or public policy of the forum to have entertained, 4 A.L.R. 968 ; 10 A.L.R. 719 ; 24 A.L.R. 1437 .

Pendency of appeal from judgment as affecting right to enforce it in another state, 5 A.L.R. 1269 .

Full-faith and credit provision as applying to decree of another state admitting a will to probate, 13 A.L.R. 498 .

Refusal to entertain an action upon a judgment rendered in another state on a cause of action which it would have been contrary to public policy of the forum to have entertained, 24 A.L.R. 1437 .

Conflict of laws as to contributory negligence, 32 A.L.R. 796 .

Inhibition by decree of divorce, or statute of state or country in which it is granted, against remarriage, as affecting a marriage celebrated in another state or country, 32 A.L.R. 1116 ; 51 A.L.R. 325 .

Conclusiveness of decision of sister state on a contested hearing as to its own jurisdiction, 52 A.L.R. 740 .

Foreign judgment based upon, or which fails to give effect to, a judgment previously rendered at the forum, or in a third jurisdiction, 53 A.L.R. 1146 .

Conclusiveness of officer's return of service of process on which judgment in sister state was rendered, 59 A.L.R. 1398 .

Limitation applicable to cause of action created by statute of another state which allows a longer period than the statute of the forum, 68 A.L.R. 217 ; 146 A.L.R. 1356 .

Duty of courts to follow decisions of other states, on questions of common law or unwritten law, in which the cause of action had its situs, 73 A.L.R. 897 .

Federal Constitution and conflict of laws as to rights not based on judgments, 74 A.L.R. 710 ; 100 A.L.R. 1143 ; 134 A.L.R. 1472 .

Duty of court of one state, under the full faith and credit clause of federal Constitution, to recognize and enforce a judgment rendered in another state upon a claim which such court has no jurisdiction to enforce, 76 A.L.R. 1364 .

Conflict of laws as to construction and effect of will devising real property, 79 A.L.R. 91 .

Extraterritorial recognition and effect on marital status of decree of divorce rendered upon constructive or substituted service, 86 A.L.R. 1329 ; 143 A.L.R. 1294 ; 157 A.L.R. 1399 ; 163 A.L.R. 368 .

Conflict of laws as regards survival of cause of action and revival of pending action upon death of party, 87 A.L.R. 852 ; 42 A.L.R.2d 1170.

Reciprocity as affecting comity, 87 A.L.R. 973 .

Conflict of laws as to conditional sale of chattels, 87 A.L.R. 1308 ; 13 A.L.R.2d 1312.

Assumption of or refusal to assume jurisdiction by court of one state or country, of action on contract involving foreign elements, 87 A.L.R. 1425 ; 90 A.L.R.2d 1109.

Right to enjoin an action in another state in respect of matters adjudicated in local action or proceeding, 91 A.L.R. 570 .

Judgment or order upholding prior judgment in the same state against direct attack upon ground of lack of jurisdiction, as conclusive in another state under the full faith and credit provision or doctrine of res judicata, 104 A.L.R. 1187 .

Conflict of laws as to period of limitation to enforce stockholders' statutory liability, 113 A.L.R. 510 ; 143 A.L.R. 1442 .

Full faith and credit provisions as affecting insurance contracts, 114 A.L.R. 250 ; 119 A.L.R. 483 ; 173 A.L.R. 1138 .

Recognition of foreign marriage as affected by policy in respect of incestuous marriages, 117 A.L.R. 186 .

Decree of court of domicil respecting validity or construction of will, or admitting it or denying its admission to probate, as conclusive as regards real estate in another state devised by will, 131 A.L.R. 1023 .

Conflict of laws regarding deficiency in respect of debt secured by mortgage or deed of trust, 136 A.L.R. 1057 .

Duty of courts of one state to recognize and give effect to decrees of divorce rendered in other states, as affected by constructive service of process or lack of domicil at divorce forum, 143 A.L.R. 1294 .

Revival of judgment by constructive service of process upon nonresident, as affected by due process and full faith and credit clauses, 144 A.L.R. 403 .

Domestic decree of divorce based upon a finding of invalidity of a previous divorce in another state, as estopping party to the domestic suit to assert, in a subsequent litigation, the validity of the divorce decree in the other state, 150 A.L.R. 465 .

Recognition of status created by foreign adoption or legitimation for purposes of testate or intestate distribution of decedent's estate in a jurisdiction in which such status could not have been created even in the case of one domiciled there, 153 A.L.R. 199 .

Decree for alimony in installments as within full faith and credit provision, 157 A.L.R. 170 .

Duty to recognize and give effect to decrees of divorce rendered in other states, or in foreign country, as affected by constructive service of process or lack of domicil at divorce forum, 157 A.L.R. 1399 .

Extraterritorial effect of provision in decree of divorce as to custody of child, 160 A.L.R. 400 .

Judgment for defendant based on the statute of limitations as bar to maintenance of action in another state, 164 A.L.R. 693 .

Right to maintain action or proceeding in one state or country to collect or enforce tax due to another state or country or political subdivision thereof, 165 A.L.R. 796 .

Estoppel to assert invalidity of decree of divorce for lack of domicil at the divorce forum or failure to obtain jurisdiction of person, 175 A.L.R. 538 .

Recognition as to marital status of foreign divorce decree attacked on ground of lack of domicil, since Williams decision, 1 A.L.R.2d 1385, 28 A.L.R.2d 1303.

Consent decree as affecting title to real estate in another state, 2 A.L.R.2d 1188.

Denial of divorce in sister state or foreign country as res judicata in another suit for divorce between the same parties, 4 A.L.R.2d 107.

Inclusion in domestic judgment or record, in action upon a judgment of a sister state, of findings respecting the cause of action on which the judgment in the sister state was rendered, 10 A.L.R.2d 435.

Foreign divorce decree as subject to attack by spouse in state of which neither spouse is resident, 12 A.L.R.2d 382.

Standing of strangers to divorce proceeding to attack validity of divorce decree, 12 A.L.R.2d 717.

Foreign filiation or support order in bastardy proceedings, requiring periodic payments, as extraterritorially enforceable, 16 A.L.R.2d 1098.

Validity and enforceability of judgment entered in sister state under a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, 39 A.L.R.2d 1232.

Enforceability in another jurisdiction of personal liability of stockholders for debts of corporation whose organization is incomplete or defective, 42 A.L.R.2d 659.

Enforceability of provision in agreement for attorney's fees, valid in state of its execution or performance, but invalid under law of forum, 54 A.L.R.2d 1053.

Injunction against suit in another state or country for divorce or separation, 54 A.L.R.2d 1240.

Fraud as defense to action on judgment of sister state, 55 A.L.R.2d 673.

Conflict of laws as to attorneys' liens, 59 A.L.R.2d 564.

Conflict of laws as to interest recoverable as part of the damages in a tort action, 68 A.L.R.2d 1337.

What law governs effect of release of one tort-feasor upon liability of another tort-feasor, 69 A.L.R.2d 1034.

Doctrine of forum non conveniens: assumption or denial of jurisdiction of contract action involving foreign elements, 90 A.L.R.2d 1109.

Conflict of laws as to right of action between husband and wife or parent and child, 96 A.L.R.2d 973.

Law governing assignment of wages or salary, 1 A.L.R.3d 927.

Judgment subject to appeal as entitled to full faith and credit, 2 A.L.R.3d 1384.

Power of divorce court to deal with real property located in other state, 34 A.L.R.3d 962.

Conflict of laws as to presumptions and burden of proof concerning facts of civil case, 35 A.L.R.3d 289.

Extraterritorial effect of valid award of custody of child of divorced parents, in absence of substantial change in circumstances, 35 A.L.R.3d 520.

Requirement of full faith and credit to foreign judgment for punitive damages, 44 A.L.R.3d 960.

Conflict of laws as to right of action for loss of consortium, 46 A.L.R.3d 880.

Disbarment or suspension of attorney in one state as affecting right to continue practice in another state, 81 A.L.R.3d 1281.

Extraterritorial application of statute permitting injured person to maintain direct action against tort-feasor's automobile liability insurer, 83 A.L.R.3d 338.

Choice of law as to application of comparative negligence doctrine, 86 A.L.R.3d 1206.

Full faith and credit "last-in-time" rule as applicable to sister state divorce or custody judgment which is inconsistent with the forum state's earlier judgment, 36 A.L.R.5th 527.

Section 2. [Privileges and Immunities, Fugitives]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Cross references. - Criminal extradition, Ch. 13, T. 17.

Editor's notes. - U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. II, cl. 3 concerned slaves and indentured servants and has been rendered obsolete by U.S. Const., amend. 13.

Law reviews. - For article discussing fishing rights along maritime belt of the United States, in light of Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 68 S. Ct. 1157 , 92 L. Ed. 1460 (1948), see 11 Ga. B.J. 191 (1948). For article, "Interstate Extradition and State Sovereignty," see 1 Mercer L. Rev. 147 (1950). For article, "Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930," see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986). For article, "Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990). For article, "Slavery and Race: New Ideas and Enduring Shibboleths in the Interpretation of the American Constitutional System," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 637 (1993). For article, "The Original Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause," see 43 Ga. L. Rev. 1117 (2009). For article, "Jurisdictional Discrimination and Full Faith and Credit," see 63 Emory L.J. 1023 (2014). For note, "Interstate Extradition," see 1 J. Pub. L. 463 (1952). For note discussing the constitutional implications of higher nonresident tuition fees charged by state universities, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 86 (1971). For comment on Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 68 S. Ct. 1157 , 92 L. Ed. 1460 (1948), holding unconstitutional discriminatory license tax on foreign shrimp boats within three-mile limit, see 11 Ga. B.J. 83 (1948). For comment discussing cruel and unusual punishment and scope of review of proceedings through writ of habeas corpus of convict escaped from chain gang, in light of Dye v. Johnson, 338 U.S. 864, 70 S. Ct. 146 , 94 L. Ed. 530 (1949), see 12 Ga. B.J. 356 (1950). For comment on Watson v. Grimes; Harper v. Grimes, 218 Ga. 631 , 129 S.E.2d 795 (1963), see 26 Ga. B.J. 92 (1963).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

Citizens' Privileges and Immunities

Former Code 1933, § 57-117 (see O.C.G.A. § 7-4-18 ) was not violative of United States Constitution on ground that it was in deprivation of defendant's rights. Atterberry v. State, 212 Ga. 778 , 95 S.E.2d 787 (1956).

Prohibition of application of doctrine of forum non conveniens to nonresidents in FELA actions. - The privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution prohibits Georgia courts from applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens to citizens of other states who are nonresidents of Georgia in Federal Employers' Liability Act cases and declining to exercise jurisdiction of such actions brought by them. Brown v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 229 Ga. 481 , 192 S.E.2d 382 , answer conformed to, 127 Ga. App. 342 , 193 S.E.2d 192 (1972).

Validity of statute denying medical care to nonresidents. - Absent some relationship to the availability of post-procedure medical care for an aborted patient, the constitutionality of a residence requirement could not be upheld. The privileges and immunities clause protects persons who enter Georgia seeking the medical services that are available there. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739 , 35 L. Ed. 2 d 201 (1973).

Cited in Jollie v. Hughes, 184 Ga. 860 , 193 S.E. 769 (1937); Southern Ry. v. Parker, 194 Ga. 94 , 21 S.E.2d 94 (1942); Coates v. Lawrence, 46 F. Supp. 414 (S.D. Ga. 1942); Mainer v. Plunkett, 216 Ga. 820 , 120 S.E.2d 175 (1961); Pahno v. Mathews, 226 Ga. 216 , 173 S.E.2d 704 (1970); Johnstone v. Deyton, 233 Ga. 146 , 210 S.E.2d 692 (1974); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 449 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ga. 1978).

Extradition
1. In General

Duty to honor demand of sister state for extradition of fugitive. - The Constitution imposes a duty upon the executive authority of each state of this Union to honor the demand of another state for the extradition of a fugitive from the demanding state. Hart v. Mount, 196 Ga. 452 , 26 S.E.2d 453 (1943).

It is not by virtue of mere comity that extradition warrant is issued, but in obedience to constitutional mandate. Hart v. Mount, 196 Ga. 452 , 26 S.E.2d 453 (1943).

Extradition based on constitutional mandate, not merely comity. - The matter of rendering one from an asylum state to another state by extradition proceedings is not founded merely on comity between the states, but is in response to a requirement under U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. II, cl. 2. House v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 572 , 105 S.E.2d 745 (1958).

Law governing extradition proceedings. - The primary law governing extradition proceedings is found in the Constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress in pursuance thereof. McFarlin v. Shirley, 209 Ga. 794 , 76 S.E.2d 1 (1953).

Elements necessary to authorize extradition. - If a request for extradition is premised on the constitutional provision, one arrested and held on the governor's warrant issued in response to the request is entitled to habeas corpus relief upon establishing that he is not a fugitive from justice. Jenkins v. Garrison, 265 Ga. 42 , 453 S.E.2d 698 (1995).

In order to authorize an extradition under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the alleged criminal act must have been committed by an individual who was at the time of its commission personally within the state which demands the individual's surrender, and that such person must have fled from the demanding state to the state where the individual is found, either directly or indirectly. Such a person is defined as a fugitive from justice. Jackson v. Pittard, 211 Ga. 427 , 86 S.E.2d 295 (1955).

Convicted felon leaving state before serving full term is fugitive from justice. - Where a person is convicted of felony committed by the person in one state, and that person goes into another state, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, before serving the full term for which that person was sentenced, that person thereby becomes a fugitive from justice. Brown v. Lowry, 185 Ga. 539 , 195 S.E. 759 (1937); King v. Mount, 196 Ga. 461 , 26 S.E.2d 419 (1943); Broyles v. Mount, 197 Ga. 659 , 30 S.E.2d 48 (1944); Taylor v. Foster, 205 Ga. 36 , 52 S.E.2d 314 (1949); House v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 572 , 105 S.E.2d 745 (1958); Frazier v. Grimes, 221 Ga. 375 , 145 S.E.2d 39 (1965); Ingram v. Dodd, 243 Ga. 788 , 256 S.E.2d 778 (1979).

Parole violator subject to extradition. - A person who has been convicted of a felony in another state and released on parole by the authorities of that state with permission to go into this state, upon the violation of the terms of parole by the commission of a felony in this state, becomes a fugitive from justice within the meaning of U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. II, cl. 2 and the Act of Congress enacted pursuant thereto, 18 U.S.C. § 662, and subject to extradition by the state where the person was convicted, although that person has committed no crime in that state subsequent to parole. Beavers v. Lowry, 186 Ga. 557 , 198 S.E. 692 (1938).

A paroled convict who violates the terms of parole may be extradited from one state to another on the ground that the person is a convict whose term has not expired, and therefore is charged with crime under the provision of United States Constitution relating to interstate extradition. Broyles v. Mount, 197 Ga. 659 , 30 S.E.2d 48 (1944); Mathews v. Foster, 209 Ga. 699 , 75 S.E.2d 427 (1953); Soviero v. State, 220 Ga. 119 , 137 S.E.2d 471 (1964); Frazier v. Grimes, 221 Ga. 375 , 145 S.E.2d 39 (1965).

Parole violator committing another felony is fugitive from justice. - If a person who has been convicted of a felony or other crime in another state, and released on parole by the authorities of that state with permission to go into another state, violates the terms of his parole by the commission of another felony, or a federal offense amounting to a felony, that person becomes a fugitive from justice within the meaning of U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. II, cl. 2. Mathews v. Foster, 209 Ga. 699 , 75 S.E.2d 427 (1953).

Convicted felon involuntarily brought into state from convicting jurisdiction to serve sentence fugitive from justice. - Petitioner, brought into Georgia after conviction in the state of Massachusetts for the purpose of serving the sentence imposed by the federal court, and consequently not coming into Georgia from Massachusetts voluntarily, was nevertheless a fugitive from justice. Scheinfain v. Aldredge, 191 Ga. 479 , 12 S.E.2d 868 (1940).

Violator of conditional pardon still charged with crime. - A person who is out on a conditional pardon which has been revoked, is nevertheless still a person who is charged with crime within the meaning of U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. II, cl. 2. Deering v. Mount, 194 Ga. 833 , 22 S.E.2d 828 (1942).

Felon serving only part of sentence subject to later extradition. - Where an individual who had been convicted and sentenced for the offense of embezzlement in the state of Louisiana was taken into custody by federal authorities and convicted and sentenced for a federal offense, was then returned to the authorities of Louisiana, and after serving a part of the sentence imposed upon the individual by the court of that state, was reprieved to the United States authorities to permit the individual to serve a federal sentence and after said sentence was served, was then arrested on a warrant issued by the Governor of Georgia on a requisition from the Governor of Louisiana, in order that the individual might be extradited and required to serve out an incomplete sentence in that state, in the circumstances the individual was a fugitive from the justice of Louisiana within the purview of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and was subject to extradition to that state. King v. Mount, 196 Ga. 461 , 26 S.E.2d 419 (1943).

Extradition not violative of right to fair trial. - One accused of crime has a right to a full and fair trial according to the law of the government whose sovereignty he is alleged to have offended, but he has no more than that. He should not be permitted to use the machinery of one sovereignty to obstruct his trial in the courts of the other, unless the necessary operation of such machinery prevents his having a fair trial, and he may not complain if one sovereignty waives its strict right to exclusive custody of him for vindication of its laws in order that the other may also subject him to conviction of crime against it. House v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 572 , 105 S.E.2d 745 (1958).

On facts, conditional pardon violator subject to extradition. - Petitioner, who was granted a conditional pardon on 10-year sentence imposed in Florida, provided that the petitioner leave the state of Florida immediately, and thereafter remain outside the state and lead a sober, peaceable, and law-abiding life, and was later arrested and tried in the federal courts and sentenced to serve ten years, was a fugitive from justice subject to extradition to Florida, when that state revoked the conditional pardon and placed a detainer with the federal authorities. House v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 572 , 105 S.E.2d 745 (1958).

2. Procedure

Precedence of extradition warrant over bill of exceptions in habeas corpus. - The filing of a bill of exceptions to the decision of the judge in the hearing of a habeas corpus case, if the petitioner is being detained under an extradition warrant, does not operate as a supersedeas, and, pending the decision on appeal, the petitioner must remain in the condition in which the petitioner is placed by the judgment; in such a case there is no provision in the law of this state for bail. Hames v. Sturdivant, 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601 (1935).

Laws of demanding state control as to sufficiency of indictment. - The question as to whether or not the alleged fugitive from the justice of another state is charged with a crime is one of law, and is always open upon the face of the papers to judicial inquiry, but if the indictment which forms the basis of the extradition proceedings substantially charges a crime in conformity to the laws of the demanding state, the prisoner should not be released, however defective such indictment might be either at common law or under the well-known rules of criminal procedure. Scheinfain v. Aldredge, 191 Ga. 479 , 12 S.E.2d 868 (1940).

When requisition papers make a case under the Constitution, the Governor without more should honor demand and issue the warrant for extradition. Hart v. Mount, 196 Ga. 452 , 26 S.E.2d 453 (1943).

Evidence insufficient to show petitioner not person named in extradition proceeding. - In habeas corpus proceedings against sheriff who was holding petitioner in custody under warrant of Governor, evidence that at a hearing held by a secretary of the Governor proof was offered showing that the petitioner was not the person named in the extradition proceeding, afforded no ground for discharging the petitioner from custody; and there being no evidence on the habeas corpus trial showing that the petitioner was not in fact the person described in the extradition proceeding, and there being an identity of names, it was not error to remand the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. Hart v. Mount, 196 Ga. 452 , 26 S.E.2d 453 (1943).

Authority of state to postpone service of remainder of term pending service of federal sentence. - After convict had served a part of the sentence imposed by the court of Louisiana, the authorities of the state could waive immediate service of the remainder and postpone such service until after service of a federal sentence, and in so doing they did not waive or release jurisdiction of Louisiana to demand the extradition of such convict. King v. Mount, 196 Ga. 461 , 26 S.E.2d 419 (1943).

Burden on petitioner to show insufficiency of executive extradition warrant. - If, in the trial of a habeas corpus case, it appears that the respondent holds the petitioner in custody under an executive warrant based upon an extradition proceeding and the warrant is regular on its face, the burden is cast upon the petitioner to show some valid and sufficient reason why the warrant should not be executed. The presumption is that the Governor has complied with the Constitution and the law, and this presumption continues until the contrary appears. King v. Mount, 196 Ga. 461 , 26 S.E.2d 419 (1943); Ellis v. Grimes, 198 Ga. 51 , 30 S.E.2d 921 (1944); Mathews v. Foster, 209 Ga. 699 , 75 S.E.2d 427 (1953); McFarlin v. Shirley, 209 Ga. 794 , 76 S.E.2d 1 (1953); Baldwin v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 390 , 116 S.E.2d 207 (1960).

Refusal to discharge alleged parole violator not error. - Refusal on the hearing of a writ of habeas corpus to discharge applicant, held under an extradition warrant as a fugitive from justice for allegedly violating parole, was not error. Broyles v. Mount, 197 Ga. 659 , 30 S.E.2d 48 (1944).

Question of law as to substantiality of crime charged against person goes to indictment. - In cases involving extradition, it is a question of law open to judicial inquiry on habeas corpus as to whether the person demanded is substantially charged with a crime against the laws of the demanding state; but this rule applies to the sufficiency of the indictment or affidavit as a pleading, and not to extraneous evidence as to actual guilt. Ellis v. Grimes, 198 Ga. 51 , 30 S.E.2d 921 (1944).

Courts of asylum state cannot, upon writ of habeas corpus, inquire into guilt or innocence of accused. Ellis v. Grimes, 198 Ga. 51 , 30 S.E.2d 921 (1944).

Evidence insufficient to show applicant not in state at time of offense. - Although in a habeas proceeding the applicant, being held under an executive warrant based on an extradition proceeding, could urge, as a ground for release, that as a matter of fact the applicant was not within the state in question at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, the evidence authorized, even if it did not demand, the finding against the applicant upon such issue. Ellis v. Grimes, 198 Ga. 51 , 30 S.E.2d 921 (1944).

Question of law as to sufficiency of indictment or affidavit charging crime. - Whether or not alleged fugitive from the justice of another state is charged with a crime, is a question of law, which is always open upon the face of the papers to judicial inquiry; but as to this question, the law requires only that the crime be substantially charged in an indictment found or in an affidavit made before a magistrate, as a matter of pleading. Ellis v. Grimes, 198 Ga. 51 , 30 S.E.2d 921 (1944).

Closer scrutiny of sufficiency of charge of crime by affidavit rather than indictment. - Although in passing upon the legal question as to whether a crime against the laws of the demanding state is sufficiently charged, there may be need for closer scrutiny if the requisition is based upon an affidavit instead of an indictment, yet if the charge as pleaded is in law sufficient for the purpose of extradition, the same presumptions and incidents will follow, upon grant by the Governor of the extradition, as if the demand had been based upon an indictment. Ellis v. Grimes, 198 Ga. 51 , 30 S.E.2d 921 (1944).

Courts of asylum state cannot, upon writ of habeas corpus, inquire into guilt or innocence of accused. No such jurisdiction is given them by law, and it would be a manifestly unwise provision if authority to investigate such a question was conferred on a tribunal that had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses who resided in another state, and whose testimony would be necessary to throw light on the issue. Mathews v. Foster, 209 Ga. 699 , 75 S.E.2d 427 (1953).

Petitioner illegally restrained if extradition warrant not based on valid requisition. - In habeas corpus proceedings, although the evidence offered by the petitioner could not be held, as a matter of law, to be sufficient to overcome the presumption that the Governor had complied with the Constitution and the laws, because the respondent tendered in evidence, over proper objections of the petitioner, the requisition of the Governor of the state of South Carolina without a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3182 the respondent in effect contradicted the prima facie showing made by the warrant alone and thus showed that the petitioner was being illegally restrained, in that the warrant was not based on a valid requisition, and the trial court erred in remanding the petitioner to the respondent. McFarlin v. Shirley, 209 Ga. 794 , 76 S.E.2d 1 (1953).

Probation violator subject to extradition without proof of commission of additional crime. - A probationer whose probation has been revoked because of a violation of its conditions may be extradited from one state to another on the ground that the probationer is a convict whose sentence has not expired, and who is charged with crime within the meaning of the United States Constitution; there is no constitutional requirement that a fugitive be shown to have committed an additional crime while a fugitive; a showing of the probationer's status as a fugitive is sufficient to support extradition proceedings. Ingram v. Dodd, 243 Ga. 788 , 256 S.E.2d 778 (1979).

Extradition proceedings are of summary nature only. - Once a habeas corpus court has found the extradition papers to be legally sufficient, a further inquiry into a petitioner's statutory and constitutional defenses violates the clear intention that an extradition proceeding be of a summary nature. Defenses that the statute of limitations has run on the offense for which the petitioner is being extradited, that the petitioner has been denied a speedy trial, and all other due process questions are issues to be properly decided by courts in the demanding state, not by courts in any asylum state. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52 , 257 S.E.2d 539 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 967, 100 S. Ct. 455 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 379 (1979).

Lack of presence in demanding state at time of commission of alleged crime is no longer a defense that is cognizable in an extradition proceeding. Once the Governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (1) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52 , 257 S.E.2d 539 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 967, 100 S. Ct. 455 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 379 (1979).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Constitutionality of discrimination as regards degree of penalty or punishment for violation of Sunday law, 8 A.L.R. 566 .

Permitting prisoner under sentence in federal court to be taken for trial before state court, 22 A.L.R. 886 ; 62 A.L.R. 279 .

One charged with desertion or failure to support wife or child as fugitive from justice, subject to extradition, 32 A.L.R. 1167 ; 54 A.L.R. 281 .

Validity of license statute or ordinance which discriminates against nonresidents, 61 A.L.R. 337 ; 112 A.L.R. 63 .

Extradition of escaped or paroled convict, or one at liberty on bail, 78 A.L.R. 419 .

Sufficiency of recitals in rendition warrant in extradition as regards copy of indictment or affidavit, 89 A.L.R. 595 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute authorizing extradition of one who commits an act within the state or a third state resulting in a crime in the demanding state, 151 A.L.R. 239 .

Validity of municipal ordinance imposing income tax or license upon nonresident in taxing jurisdiction (commuter tax), 48 A.L.R.3d 343.

Necessity that demanding state show probable cause to arrest fugitive in extradition proceedings, 90 A.L.R.3d 1085.

Modern status of rule relating to jurisdiction of state court to try criminal defendant brought within jurisdiction illegally or as result of fraud or mistake, 25 A.L.R.4th 157.

Court-authorized permanent or temporary removal of child by parent to foreign country, 30 A.L.R.4th 548.

"Guilty but mentally ill" statutes: validity and construction, 71 A.L.R.4th 702.

Right of extraditee to bail after issuance of governor's warrant and pending final disposition of habeas corpus claim. 13 A.L.R.5th 118.

State statutes or ordinances requiring persons previously convicted of crime to register with authorities, 36 A.L.R.5th 161.

Jurisdiction of federal court to try criminal defendant who alleges that he was brought within United States jurisdiction illegally or as result of fraud or mistake, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 685.

Section 3. [Admission of New States, Territory and Other Property]

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Law reviews. - For article, "Georgia Water Law: Use and Control Factors," see 19 Ga. B.J. 119 (1956). For article, "The Federal Loyalty Security Program - A Constitutional Dilemma," see 20 Ga. B.J. 473 (1958).

Section 4. [Guarantee of Republican Government]

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Law reviews. - For article "Free Speech and the Interest in Local Law and Order," see 1 J. of Pub. L. 41 (1952). For article, "The Law of the Land," focusing on the role of the Supreme Court, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 444 (1957). For article arguing against constitutional justification for the sending of federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas and the federalization of Arkansas troops, see 20 Ga. B.J. 325 (1957). For article, "Whether the Appellate Power of the Supreme Court Should Be Limited, Or More Expressly Declared," see 21 Ga. B.J. 19 (1958). For article, "Reapportionment Recapitulated: 1960-1970," see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 191 (1970). For article, "Constitutional Issues In Federal No-Fault," see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 273 (1975). For article, "Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930," see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

United States is a democratic country with a republican form of government. Leoles v. Landers, 184 Ga. 580 , 192 S.E. 218 , appeal dismissed, 302 U.S. 656, 58 S. Ct. 364 , 87 L. Ed. 507 (1937).

Cited in Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933); South v. Peters, 89 F. Supp. 672 (N.D. Ga. 1950); Cox v. Georgia Educ. Auth., 225 Ga. 542 , 170 S.E.2d 240 (1969); Revels v. Tift County, 235 Ga. 333 , 219 S.E.2d 445 (1975).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Effect of section on state constitutional provision. - United States Const., art. II, sec. III, means that the laws must be executed as required by other constitutional provisions, such as the one that demands a request from the Legislature or the Governor of the state before federal troops are used to put down domestic violence (U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. IV). 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 8.

Circumstances necessary for implementation of section. - The Constitution only authorizes the United States to take protective action against domestic violence in any state on application of the Legislature or of the executive; U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. IV has been construed in a number of cases, and there are several Supreme Court decisions that call attention to the fact that the United States can only intervene to suppress violence in a state on application of the Legislature or of the executive of that state. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 8.

ARTICLE V. [Amendment of the Constitution]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Cross references. - Representation at constitutional convention, T. 50, Ch. 1, A. 2.

Editor's notes. - House Resolution 105 of the 1991 Session of the General Assembly (Ga. L. 1991, p. 2041) petitions the U.S. Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the U.S. Constitution relative to disrespectful acts toward the United States and state flags.

Ga. L. 2004, p. 1081, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "the General Assembly does hereby rescind, repeal, cancel, void, nullify, and supersede, to the same effect as if they had never been passed, any and all prior applications by the General Assembly to the Congress of the United States of America to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, pursuant to the terms of Article V thereof, regardless of when and regardless of whether such applications were for a more limited convention to propose one or more amendments regarding one or more specific subjects and purposes or for a general convention to propose an unlimited number of amendments upon an unlimited number of subjects.

"Be it further resolved that the General Assembly hereby specifically repeals Resolution Act No. 53 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 472), passed during the 1952 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 61 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 480), passed during the 1952 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 2 (Ga. L. 1955, p. 4), passed during the 1955 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 45 (Ga. L. 1959, p. 383), passed during the 1959 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Senate Resolution No. 39, passed during the 1961 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 89 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 559), passed during the 1965 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 96 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 894), passed during the 1967 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 93 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 184), passed during the 1976 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; and House Resolution No. 105 (Ga. L. 1991, p. 2041), passed during the 1991 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly.

"Be it further resolved that the General Assembly urges the legislatures of each and every state that has applied to Congress to call a convention for either a general or limited constitutional convention to repeal and withdraw such applications.

"Be it further resolved that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each state in the Union, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Georgia Congressional delegation, and the Administrator of General Services."

Law reviews. - For article discussing Article V and the constitutional convention as a method of amending the Constitution, see 20 J. of Pub. L. 543 (1971). For article, "The Convention Method of Amending the United States Constitution," see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1979). For article, “The Law and Economics of Entrenchment,” see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 61 (2019). For note, "ERA: The Effect of Extending the Time for Ratification on Attempts to Rescind Prior Ratifications," see 28 Emory L.J. 71 (1979). For note, "Informed Voter Initiatives and Uninformed Judicial Review Under Article V," see 34 Ga. L. Rev. 1701 (2000).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in South v. Peters, 89 F. Supp. 672 (N.D. Ga. 1950); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 481 (1964).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Judicial decisions relating to adoption or repeal of amendments to federal Constitution, 87 A.L.R. 1321 ; 122 A.L.R. 717 .

Removal or suspension of constitutional limitation as affecting statute previously enacted, 171 A.L.R. 1070 .

ARTICLE VI. [Debts, Supremacy, Oath]

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Cross references. - Taking of oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Georgia, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. IV, Para. II (members of General Assembly); Art. V, Sec. I, Para. VI and § 45-12-4 (Governor); §§ 15-2-3 , 15-3-5 , 15-6-6 (judges); Ch. 3, T. 45 (public officers generally).

Editor's notes. - U.S. Const., amend. 14, sec. III, disqualifies from office those persons who fail to honor the oath required by Clause 3 of this article.

Law reviews. - For article, "Interposition, Nullification and the Delicate Division of Power in a Federal System," see 5 J. of Pub. L. 2 (1956). For article, "The Law of the Land," focusing on the role of the Supreme Court, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 444 (1957). For article criticizing statutory interpretation of Federal Power Act extending federal authority through the commerce clause, and proposing a balancing of interests test to protect state jurisdiction over production and gathering of natural gas and electricity when they are local activities, see 10 Mercer L. Rev. 226 (1959). For article, "The Subject-Matter Limitation Upon the Treaty-Making Power," see 11 J. of Pub. L. 122 (1962). For article, "Consolidation by Compact: A Remedy for Preemption of State Food and Drug Laws," see 14 J. of Pub. L. 276 (1965). For article, "The Treaty Power and Family Law," see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 55 (1972). For article, "The Role and Impact of the Supreme Court and Judicial Decision-Making in the Evolution of American Federalism," see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 457 (1972). For article discussing the "void from inception" doctrine as applied to statutory law in Georgia, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 101 (1973). For article discussing the constitutional parameters of state efforts to stimulate international trade, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 391 (1976). For article suggesting federal preemption implications of state attempts to regulate foreign investment in domestic corporations, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 615 (1976). For article discussing the interrelationship between state and federal authority in regulating scientific and technological expansion, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 785 (1977). For article discussing theoretical problems raised by constitutional adjudication and judicial supremacy in the United States, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 1069 (1977). For article, "The Georgia Bill of Rights: Dead or Alive?," see 34 Emory L.J. 341 (1985). For article, "Separation of Political Powers: Boundaries or Balance?," 21 Ga. L. Rev. 171 (1986). For article, "State Taxation of Interstate Banking," see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1986). For article, "Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987). For article, "Georgia's Current Antitakeover Law: A Look at Management's New Shield," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 176 (1988). For article, "Exclusion of Evidence in Federal Prosecutions on the Basis of State Law," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 667 (1988). For article, "Children, Poverty and State Constitutions," see 38 Emory L.J. 577 (1989). For annual survey on product liability, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 231 (2012). For article, "Conflict of Laws Structure and Vision: Updating a Venerable Discipline," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015). For article, "Faithful Parents: Choice of Childcare Parentage Laws," see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 325 (2019). For note discussing habeas corpus as a means of exerting control by the central government in protecting the constitutional rights of criminal defendants and the ramifications for federalism, see 16 Mercer L. Rev. 281 (1964). For note, "The State Action Doctrine and State Antitrust Laws - Thirty-five Years of Struggle," see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 1039 (1969). For note discussing the doctrine of federal preemption in the allocation of powers between the nation and the states, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 391 (1973). For note, "Oil Spills - State Prevention and the Possibility of Pre-emption," see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 559 (1973). For note, "Overcoming Tobacco Company Immunity: Cipollone Clears an Uncertain Path," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 253 (1992). For note, "Federal Preemption of State Products Liability Claims: Adding Clarity and Respect for State Sovereignty to the Analysis of Federal Preemption Defenses," see 36 Ga. L. Rev. 797 (2002). For note, "State Drone Laws: A Legitimate Answer to State Concerns or a Violation of Federal Sovereignty," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 377 (2015). For comment criticizing Sei Fujii v. State, 217 P.2d 481 (Cal. 1950), holding suspending California Alien Land Law as discriminatory in violation of United States Treaty, see 2 Mercer L. Rev. 276 (1950). For comment on Commonwealth of Pa. v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S. Ct. 477 , 100 L. Ed. 640 (1956), holding that the Federal Alien Registration Act (Smith Act), 54 Statute 670, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 2835, superseded the enforceability of Pennsylvania Sedition Act, see 19 Ga. B.J. 100 (1956). For comment concerning state taxation of federal property in light of Offutt Hous. Co. v. County of Sarpy, 351 U.S. 253, 76 S. Ct. 814 , 100 L. Ed. 1151 (1956), see 19 Ga. B.J. 247 (1956). For comment on Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222 , 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1148 (1957), and Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470, 76 S. Ct. 886 , 100 L. Ed. 1342 (1956), as to military authority overseas over dependents of servicemen, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 540 (1957). For comment on United States v. Barash, 428 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1970), as to the constitutionality under the principle of double jeopardy, of increasing severity of punishment on retrial following successful appeal, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 194 (1971). For comment on Anderson v. Laird, 316 F. Supp. 1081 (D.D.C. 1970), as to religious regulations at military academies, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 400 (1971). For comment discussing federal immunity from state taxation, in light of United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U.S. 452, 97 S. Ct. 699 , 50 L. Ed. 2 d 683 (1977), see 26 Emory L.J. 709 (1977). For comment, "Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland: Reaffirming Ex Parte Young and the Necessity of Finding Regulatory Hand-Back Schemes to a Gift or Gratuity," see 52 Emory L.J. 1519 (2003).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Hague Conventions are binding in Georgia (as in all states) under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Edwards v. Edwards, 254 Ga. App. 849 , 563 S.E.2d 888 (2002).

Cited in Featherstone v. Norman, 170 Ga. 370 , 153 S.E. 58 (1930); In re Moore, 42 F.2d 475 (N.D. Ga. 1930); Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933); United States v. One Chevrolet Truck, 79 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1935); Morris Plan Bank v. Simmons, 201 Ga. 157 , 39 S.E.2d 166 (1946); Regents of Univ. Sys. v. Carroll, 338 U.S. 586, 70 S. Ct. 370 , 94 L. Ed. 363 (1950); Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. v. Oneida, Ltd., 209 Ga. 613 , 75 S.E.2d 161 (1953); Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S. Ct. 1783 , 16 L. Ed. 2 d 925 (1966); Bond v. Floyd, 251 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ga. 1966); McDaniel v. Gangarosa, 126 Ga. App. 666 , 191 S.E.2d 578 (1972); Granese v. State, 232 Ga. 193 , 206 S.E.2d 26 (1974); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 515 F. Supp. 176 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Zimmerman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 159 Ga. App. 429 , 283 S.E.2d 639 (1981); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 673 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1982); Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48, 105 S. Ct. 1721 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 36 (1985); Mayor of City of Forsyth v. Monroe County, 260 Ga. 296 , 392 S.E.2d 865 (1990); Ragsdale v. Blaw Knox Corp. (In re Hydro-Chem Processing, Inc.), 190 Bankr. 129 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995).

Supreme Law of Land

Inconsistent state law. - The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution dictates that federal law preempts inconsistent state law. Poloney v. Tambrands, Inc., 260 Ga. 850 , 412 S.E.2d 526 (1991).

Direct conflict between state law and federal constitutional provisions raises question under supremacy clause of broader scope than where the alleged conflict is only between a state statute and a federal statute that might be resolved by the construction given either the state or the federal law. United States v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 371 U.S. 285, 83 S. Ct. 397 , 9 L. Ed. 2 d 317 (1963).

State policy opposed to federal policy must give way. A state is without power to provide the conditions on which the federal government will effectuate its policies. United States v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 371 U.S. 285, 83 S. Ct. 397 , 9 L. Ed. 2 d 317 (1963).

Regulations promulgated by federal agencies under a statutory authorization have the force of federal law and can preempt conflicting state law. Crowe v. Fleming, 749 F. Supp. 1135 (S.D. Ga. 1990).

Motorist's tort claim, alleging that a tractor-trailer was defective because it did not have adequate reflective materials along its side, was preempted by federal regulations promulgated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Crowe v. Fleming, 749 F. Supp. 1135 (S.D. Ga. 1990).

Georgia's direct action statutes preempted by Liability Risk Retention Act. - Liability Risk Retention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3901, et seq., preempted Georgia's motor carrier and insurance carrier direct action statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 40-1-112(c) and 40-2-140(d)(4), in regard to a risk retention group that was not chartered in Georgia, thus precluding injured passengers from bringing a direct action against the risk retention group. The court rejected the passengers' contention that the statutes were financial responsibility laws and not preempted under 15 U.S.C. § 3905. Reis v. OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc., 303 Ga. 659 , 814 S.E.2d 338 (2018).

Supreme Court ruling on a constitutional issue is a constitutional rule binding upon the states. Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S. Ct. 639 , 17 L. Ed. 2 d 593 (1967).

Application of supremacy clause requires determination of, and balancing of, state and local action against federal policy. DeKalb County v. Henry C. Beck Co., 382 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1967).

United States Supreme Court decisions construing federal statute binding on state supreme court. - The Bankruptcy Act being a federal statute, decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing and applying it are binding upon the state Supreme Court as precedents. Branch v. Human, 215 Ga. 209 , 109 S.E.2d 732 (1959).

Limitation on state power of direct taxation. - In the field of direct taxation, the power of the sovereign state is supreme, except when the exercise of that supreme right brings it into collision with the operation of a government instrumentality necessary to the existence of the federal government and to the exercise of its powers upon a subject as to which exclusive jurisdiction was delegated to Congress in the Constitution of 1789. City of Atlanta v. Stokes, 175 Ga. 201 , 165 S.E. 270 (1932).

State courts cannot award federal tax exemption. - Georgia state courts do not have the authority to award the federal income tax dependency exemption to a noncustodial parent. Blanchard v. Blanchard, 261 Ga. 11 , 401 S.E.2d 714 (1991).

Federal power to wage war superior to state power to tax. - Even though the power of a state to tax generally is supreme, that power may not be used to hamper, hinder, annoy, harass, and impede the federal government in the exercise of its unlimited power to carry on war. City of Atlanta v. Stokes, 175 Ga. 201 , 165 S.E. 270 (1932).

Nothing in Constitution requires State of Georgia to make conviction of federal offense grounds for disqualification to serve as juror. Brady v. State, 199 Ga. 566 , 34 S.E.2d 849 (1945).

Strict local rules of pleading cannot be used to impose unnecessary burdens upon rights of recovery authorized by federal laws. Brown v. Western Ry., 338 U.S. 294, 70 S. Ct. 105 , 94 L. Ed. 100 (1949).

Federal bankruptcy law preempts state law, owing to the supremacy clause. As one of Congress' enumerated powers, the power to enact bankruptcy laws is limited only by the substantive guarantees contained in the federal Constitution. Goerg v. Parungao, 844 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034, 109 S. Ct. 850 , 102 L. Ed. 2 d 981 (1989).

The Constitution of the United States empowered Congress to establish "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States," and laws enacted by Congress pursuant to this grant of authority are supreme to those of the states. Bankruptcy provisions allowing the opportunity to cure and reinstate accelerated debts and bankruptcy provisions governing the payment of secured creditors' attorney's fees are no exception to the supremacy clause. In re Centre Court Apts., Ltd., 85 Bankr. 651 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1988).

The federal Bankruptcy Code, rules, and official forms, rather than Georgia law, apply and control in prescribing the procedure whereby exemptions are to be claimed in a bankruptcy case and, as a result, debtors in bankruptcy are not required to comply with O.C.G.A. § 44-13-101 . Caruthers v. Fleet Fin., Inc., 87 Bankr. 723 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1988).

Federal law preempted plaintiff's state law claims against defendants for actions they took in violation of plaintiff's bankruptcy stay. Smith v. Mitchell Constr. Co., 225 Ga. App. 383 , 481 S.E.2d 558 (1997).

State statute affecting area not addressed by federal law. - The enactment of a state statute affecting an area of the law that is not addressed by the federal statute concerning child pornography law (18 U.S.C. § 2251) does not violate the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Aman v. State, 261 Ga. 669 , 409 S.E.2d 645 (1991).

Treaty as to service of process on foreign corporation. - In action involving sufficiency of service of process on foreign corporation, judicial notice had to be taken of a treaty concerning service abroad, and it predominates over any statutory provision of the State of Georgia. Camp v. Sellers & Co., 158 Ga. App. 646 , 281 S.E.2d 621 (1981).

Deliberate violations of state law for federal purposes. - Investigators and prosecutors must be as aware as are the courts of the delicate interface between state and federal law enforcement. Deliberate violations of state law for federal purposes must be the rare exception, and be clearly seen to be reasonable, necessary, and proper. Otherwise, federal officers will have to be abandoned by federal courts as the supremacy clause will not save them. Baucom v. Martin, 677 F.2d 1346 (11th Cir. 1982).

That a deliberate violation of state law may render federal law enforcement more convenient is insufficient to shield the agent from state prosecution. More is required lest the issue, at least initially, be left to state court resolution. Baucom v. Martin, 677 F.2d 1346 (11th Cir. 1982).

Child support guidelines. - O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 is not unconstitutional under the supremacy clause. Ward v. McFall, 277 Ga. 649 , 593 S.E.2d 340 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 818, 125 S. Ct. 57 , 160 L. Ed. 2 d 26 (2004).

State defenses to civil rights claims. - Supremacy clause of federal Constitution prevents state court from construing federal rule to permit state immunity defense to claim made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Davis v. City of Roswell, 250 Ga. 8 , 295 S.E.2d 317 (1982), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1122, 106 S. Ct. 1640 , 90 L. Ed. 2 d 185 (1986).

Using state law to interpret federal act. - Applicability of the general provisions of state contract law to the determination of the "making of an arbitration agreement" did not violate the Federal Arbitration Act and, thus, the supremacy clause. Hull v. Norcom, Inc., 750 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1985).

Under the supremacy clause, § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act preempts O.C.G.A. § 34-4-6 and thus employee employed under contract requiring arbitration of any claims or disputes cannot bring action under O.C.G.A. § 34-4-6 for unpaid wages. Haluska v. RAF Fin. Corp., 875 F. Supp. 825 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

State is prohibited from implementing employment reclassification proposal that was flawed and likely to have an adverse racial impact. Williams v. Ledbetter, 685 F. Supp. 247 (M.D. Ga. 1988).

Georgia "anti-takeover" statute enjoyed a presumption of validity under the supremacy and interstate commerce clauses, because it could not be established with the required degree of legal certainty that the statute denied hostile tender offers for Georgia corporations a meaningful opportunity to succeed. West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Farley, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 1096 (N.D. Ga. 1989).

Treaty duly entered into is the supreme law of the land. Butler's Shoe Corp. v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 514 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1975).

Treaty lawfully entered into stands on same footing of supremacy as do the Constitution and laws of the United States. - A treaty must be regarded as a part of the law of the state as much as are the state's own statutes and it may override the power of the state even with respect to the great body of private relations which usually fall within the control of the state. Block v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 229 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Ga. 1964), aff'd, 386 F.2d 323 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 905, 88 S. Ct. 2053 , 20 L. Ed. 2 d 1363 (1968).

Warsaw Convention, as a treaty, constitutes part of the law of this land, overriding state law and policies. - One is not bound to seek redress in the courts of this country. One may submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign state and, presumably, have one's rights determined in accordance with the law of that place; but if one institutes action here, the law which the court will apply is that set forth by the convention, even though it be inconsistent with the law of the forum. Block v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 229 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Ga. 1964), aff'd, 386 F.2d 323 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 905, 88 S. Ct. 2053 , 20 L. Ed. 2 d 1363 (1968).

Use of the words "Anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding" means that the statute in which the phrase is used takes precedence over, and is intended to exclude and not include, the operation of other statutes which may not be in harmony therewith. Dinkler v. Jenkins, 118 Ga. App. 239 , 163 S.E.2d 443 , rev'd on other grounds, 224 Ga. 785 , 164 S.E.2d 799 (1968).

Legislation conflicting with a court order drawing its authority from U.S. Const., amend. 14 is unconstitutional. Stell v. Board of Pub. Educ., 334 F. Supp. 909 (S.D. Ga. 1971).

Laws or regulations promoting racial discrimination unconstitutional. - Any law or regulation of a state, county, or municipality requiring or furthering racial discrimination in the public schools violates the federal Constitution. Stell v. Board of Pub. Educ., 334 F. Supp. 909 (S.D. Ga. 1971).

Federal court decisions other than Supreme Court's not binding on Georgia appellate courts. - While the decisions of the United States Supreme Court are binding upon the Georgia appellate courts, those of other federal courts are not binding upon the Georgia appellate courts. Security Mgt. Co. v. King, 132 Ga. App. 618 , 208 S.E.2d 576 (1974).

Constitutionally obtained evidence in violation of state law admissible in federal courts. - Wiretap or other evidence obtained without violating the federal Constitution or federal law is admissible in a federal criminal trial even though obtained in violation of state law. United States v. Hayes, 445 F. Supp. 455 (M.D. Ga. 1977).

Supremacy clause denies state legislatures control over jurisdiction or procedure in courts of the United States. United States v. Hayes, 445 F. Supp. 455 (M.D. Ga. 1977).

Applicability of preemption doctrine. - The preemption doctrine may apply: (1) if there is direct conflict between state and federal regulation; (2) if state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress; or (3) if Congress has "occupied the field" in a given area so as to oust all state regulation, whether friendly or hostile. Exxon Corp. v. Georgia Ass'n of Petro. Retailers, 484 F. Supp. 1008 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff'd sub nom. Exxon Corp. v. Busbee, 644 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981), 644 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 932, 102 S. Ct. 430 , 70 L. Ed. 2 d 239 (1981).

The preemption doctrine is a product of the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2, which invalidates state laws that interfere with, or are contrary to, federal law. The preemption argument invokes the Supreme Court of Georgia's constitutional question jurisdiction under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Para. II (1). RES-GA McDonough, LLC v. Taylor English Duma LLP, 302 Ga. 444 , 807 S.E.2d 381 (2017).

With statutory conflicts, preemption largely a matter of construction. - If preemption is deemed to occur by virtue of conflict with a federal statute, the extent of preemption is largely a question of statutory construction. Exxon Corp. v. Georgia Ass'n of Petro. Retailers, 484 F. Supp. 1008 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff'd sub nom. Exxon Corp. v. Busbee, 644 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981), 644 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 932, 102 S. Ct. 430 , 70 L. Ed. 2 d 239 (1981).

Preemption may be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress' command is explicitly stated in the statute's language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose. Poloney v. Tambrands, Inc., 260 Ga. 850 , 412 S.E.2d 526 (1991).

States may not statutorily burden access to federal courts with requirements federal courts are prohibited from imposing. Ehlers v. City of Decatur, 614 F.2d 54 (5th Cir. 1980).

Allegations concerning federal rights insufficient to confer jurisdiction. - Because the federal rights of which plaintiff was allegedly deprived were those arising under the Social Security Act and the supremacy clause of the Constitution, such allegations were insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Seagraves v. Harris, 629 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1980).

Federal FDA tampon warning label requirements expressly preempted state tampon warning label requirements for toxic shock syndrome, including those that emanated from state tort law. Poloney v. Tambrands, Inc., 260 Ga. 850 , 412 S.E.2d 526 (1991).

Supremacy clause does not apply to the regulatory scheme promulgated under the Medicare and Medicaid Acts. See Brogdon v. National Healthcare Corp., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2000).

Train speed limits are part of federal statutory scheme that explicitly preempts state regulations covering the same subject matter. Easterwood v. CSX Transp., Inc., 933 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1991), aff'd, 507 U.S. 658, 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. Ed. 2 d 387 (1993).

In a wrongful death action that alleged negligence under Georgia law, federal regulations pre-empted the negligence action only insofar as it asserted that the train was traveling at an excessive speed. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. Ed. 2 d 387 (1993), superseded by statute as stated in Armijo v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 87 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 1996)(decided under prior law). But see CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (N.D. Ga. 1998), aff'd, 182 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1999).

Federal Survivor Benefit Plan (10 U.S.C. § 1447 et seq.) preempted the authority of state law regarding the payment of annuity benefits. King v. King, 225 Ga. App. 298 , 483 S.E.2d 379 (1997).

Federal Aviation Safety Noise Abatement Act of 1979 preempts state law with regard to suits seeking redress for airport noise. City of Atlanta v. Watson, 267 Ga. 185 , 475 S.E.2d 896 (1996).

Common-law railroad grade crossing liability not affected. - In the absence of a decision by a federally designated policymaker, state common-law liabilities relating to the adequacy of railroad grade crossings are not affected by the federal highway aid provisions of the United States Code. Easterwood v. CSX Transp., Inc., 933 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1991), aff'd, 507 U.S. 658, 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. Ed. 2 d 387 (1993).

Wrongful death claim that the owner and operator of a train was negligent under Georgia law for failing to maintain adequate warning devices at a crossing was not pre-empted by federal law. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 113 S. Ct. 1732 , 123 L. Ed. 2 d 387 (1993), superseded by statute as stated in Armijo v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 87 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 1996)(decided under prior law). But see CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (N.D. Ga. 1998), aff'd, 182 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1999).

Electric cooperative not exempt from state and local taxation. - An electric cooperative's right and privilege to distribute electric power purchased by it from the Tennessee Valley Authority pursuant to contract does not render it an instrumentality of the federal government exempt from state and local taxation. North Ga. Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Calhoun, 264 Ga. 769 , 450 S.E.2d 410 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1109, 115 S. Ct. 1960 , 131 L. Ed. 2 d 852 (1995).

The Federal Election Campaign Act preempts O.C.G.A. § 21-5-35 , pertaining to the acceptance of campaign contributions during legislative sessions, insofar as applies to candidates for federal office. Teper v. Miller, 82 F.3d 989 (11th Cir. 1996).

Oath of Office

Oath provisions of the United States and Georgia Constitutions do not violate U.S. Const., amend. 1; but this requirement does not authorize a majority of state legislators to test the sincerity with which another duly elected legislator can swear to uphold the Constitution. Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S. Ct. 339 , 17 L. Ed. 2 d 235 (1966).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Supremacy clause of federal Constitution prohibits United States military personnel from serving on state juries. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-125.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Relation of treaty to state and Federal law, 4 A.L.R. 1377 ; 134 A.L.R. 882 .

Conflict between federal and state statutes of limitations, 82 A.L.R. 808 .

Power of state or municipality to impose license fee or tax upon safe-deposit vaults maintained by national bank, 115 A.L.R. 684 .

Jurisdiction of state court to enforce or control performance by federal officer or employee of duties imposed upon him by a federal statute, 138 A.L.R. 1200 .

Effect of unreasonableness, or variance from constitutional, charter, or statutory provision, of penalty prescribed by ordinance, 138 A.L.R. 1208 .

Validity of ordinance relating to usury or interest rates as affected by variations from statutory provisions, 138 A.L.R. 1492 .

Duty of state courts to follow decisions of federal courts, other than the Supreme Court, on federal questions, 147 A.L.R. 857 .

Enforceability of federal penal statutes in state courts, 162 A.L.R. 373 ; 172 A.L.R. 231 .

Federal court's adoption of state period of limitation, in action to enforce federally created right, as including related or subsidiary state laws or rules as to limitations, 90 A.L.R.2d 265.

Constitutionality of statutory provision requiring reimbursement of public by child for financial assistance to aged parents, 75 A.L.R.3d 1159.

Validity, construction, and application of state statutory provisions limiting amount of recovery in medical malpractice claims, 26 A.L.R.5th 245.

Application of state and local construction and building regulations to contractors engaged in construction projects for the federal government, 131 A.L.R. Fed. 583.

ARTICLE VII. [Ratification and Establishment]

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth in witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Go. WASHINGTON -

President and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire

John Langdon Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts

Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King

Connecticut

Wm. Saml. Johnson Roger Sherman

New York

Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey

Wil: Livingston Wm. Paterson

David Brearley Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania

B Franklin Thomas Mifflin

Robt Morris Geo. Clymer

Thos. FitzSimons Jared Ingersoll

James Wilson Gouv Morris

Delaware

Geo: Read Gunning Bedford jun

John Dickinson Richard Bassett

Jaco: Broom

Maryland

James McHenry Dan of St

Danl Carroll

Virginia

John Blair James Madison Jr.

North Carolina

Wm. Blount Richd. Dobbs Spaight

Hu Williamson

South Carolina

J Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler.

Georgia

William Few Abr Baldwin

Attest: WILLIAM JACKSON, Secretary.

Editor's notes. - The Constitution was submitted by resolution of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787. It became effective on March 4, 1789, the day fixed for commencement of the operation of the government, by virtue of its ratification by the conventions of 11 states, as follows: Delaware, December 7, 1787; Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787; New Jersey, December 18, 1787; Georgia, January 2, 1788; Connecticut, January 9, 1788; Massachusetts, February 6, 1788; Maryland, April 28, 1788; South Carolina, May 23, 1788; New Hampshire, June 21, 1788; Virginia, June 26, 1788; and New York, July 26, 1788. The conventions of North Carolina and Rhode Island subsequently ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789, and May 29, 1790, respectively.

Law reviews. - For note, "ERA: The Effect of Extending the Time for Ratification on Attempts to Rescind Prior Ratifications," see 28 Emory L.J. 71 (1979).

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

Amend.

Editor's notes. - The first ten amendments were all proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and subsequently declared ratified by the constitutionally required number of states on December 15, 1791. The later amendments were proposed and declared ratified on the following dates: Amendment 11, proposed March 4, 1794 and ratified January 8, 1798; Amendment 12, proposed December 12, 1803 and ratified September 25, 1804; Amendment 13, proposed February 1, 1865 and ratified December 18, 1865; Amendment 14, proposed June 16, 1866 and ratified July 28, 1868; Amendment 15, proposed February 27, 1869 and ratified March 30, 1870; Amendment 16, proposed July 12, 1909 and ratified February 25, 1913; Amendment 17, proposed May 16, 1912 and ratified May 13, 1913; Amendment 18, proposed December 17, 1917 and ratified January 29, 1919; Amendment 19, proposed June 5, 1919 and ratified August 26, 1920; Amendment 20, proposed March 2, 1932 and ratified February 6, 1933; Amendment 21, proposed February 20, 1933 and ratified December 5, 1933; Amendment 22, proposed March 24, 1947 and ratified March 1, 1951; Amendment 23, proposed June 16, 1960 and ratified April 3, 1961; Amendment 24, proposed August 27, 1962 and ratified February 4, 1964; Amendment 25, proposed July 6, 1965 and ratified February 23, 1967; and Amendment 26, proposed March 23, 1971, and ratified July 5, 1971.

Cross references. - Bill of Rights Day, § 1-4-13 .

[Amendment I] [Freedom of Religion, of Speech, and of the Press]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cross references. - Freedom of religion, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. III; Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. IV.

Freedom of speech and press, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. V.

Freedom of assembly and petition, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. IX.

Forbidding direct or indirect aid to any church institution, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. VII.

Tax exemptions for religious groups, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VII, Sec. II, Para. I-IV.

Exercise of rights of freedom of speech and right to petition government for redress of grievances; legislative findings; verification of claims; definitions; procedure on motions; exception; attorney's fees and expenses, § 9-11-11.1 .

Common day of rest, § 10-1-570 et seq.

Adult's reliance on prayer or religious nonmedical means of treatment of dependent, § 15-11-107 .

Invasion of privacy through electronic mediums, T. 16, C. 11, Pt. 3.

Harassing communication, § 16-11-39.1 .

Free Speech and Expression at State Institutions of Higher Education, P. 1D, A. 2, Ch. 3, T. 20.

Elective course in History and Literature of the Old and New Testaments, § 20-2-148 .

Prohibition against mass gatherings without a permit, § 31-27-2 .

Statement of rights under federal law, § 34-6-20.1 .

Discrimination in public employment on basis of religion, §§ 45-19-29 , 45-19-34 .

Access of news media to public meetings of departments, agencies, etc., of states, counties, etc., § 50-14-1 .

Immunity of broadcasters from liability for Levi's Call: Georgia's Amber Alert Program, § 51-1-50 .

Editor's notes. - The Supreme Court has declared that the due process clause of U.S. Const., amend. 14, protects the personal rights specified in this amendment from state, as well as Congressional acts. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900 , 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940) (freedom of religion); Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 47 S. Ct. 655 , 71 L. Ed. 1108 (1927) (freedom of speech); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625 , 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931) (freedom of the press); and Dejonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 57 S. Ct. 255 , 81 L. Ed. 278 (1937) (freedom of assembly).

Law reviews. - For article, "Religious Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment," see 9 Ga. B.J. 141 (1946). For article criticizing operation of this amendment in relation to right of privacy, see 10 Ga. B.J. 53 (1947). For article discussing conflict between free speech guarantees and municipal ordinances protecting public tranquility, see 14 Ga. B.J. 191 (1951). For article "Free Speech and the Interest in Local Law and Order," see 1 J. of Pub. L. 41 (1952). For article, "Freedoms of the First Amendment in Georgia," see 15 Ga. B.J. 405 (1953). For article, "Crime Comic Books: Government Control and Their Impact on Juvenile Conduct," see 7 Mercer L. Rev. 331 (1956). For article, "State Precedents for the Bill of Rights," see 7 J. of Pub. L. 323 (1958). For article, "Civil Liberties and Statutory Construction," see 8 J. of Pub. L. 66 (1959). For article, "Interpreting the Georgia Constitution Today," see 10 Mercer L. Rev. 219 (1959). For article, "Government Encouragement of Religious Ideology: A Study of the Current Conscientious Objector Exemption from Military Service," see 13 J. of Pub. L. 16 (1964). For article on this amendment's separation of church and state and state aid to parochial schools under the child benefit theory, see 13 J. of Pub. L. 76 (1964). For article "Religion and the Constitution - A Symposium on the Supreme Court Decisions on Prayer and Bible Reading in the Public Schools," see 13 J. of Pub. L. 247 et seq. (1964). For article, "The Supreme Court and Religion in Public Higher Education," see 13 J. of Pub. L. 343 (1964). For article, "Public Law, Politics, and the Local Courts: Obscene Literature in Portland," see 14 J. of Pub. L. 105 (1965). For article characterizing nonviolent demonstrations on the property of another as illegitimate exercises of the freedom of speech and espousing the "right not to listen," see 16 Mercer L. Rev. 389 (1965). For article, "The Legal Status of the American Communist Party: 1965," see 15 J. of Pub. L. 94 (1966). For article, "Free Speech: The 'Missing Link' in the Law of Obscenity," see 16 J. of Pub. L. 81 (1967). For article, "Civil Disobedience: A New Credo?" see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 16 (1967). For article, "The Right to Denounce Public Officials in England and the United States," see 17 J. of Pub. L. 78 (1968). For article discussing this amendment's restrictions on judicial power to punish for contempt outside the courtroom, see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 341 (1968). For article discussing treatment by Georgia appellate courts of controversies arising from the use of streets and public parks as forums for expression of views, see 3 Ga. L. Rev. 80 (1968). For article, "Allegedly Disruptive Student Behavior and the Legal Authority of School Officials," see 19 J. of Pub. L. 209 (1970). For article analyzing relationship of religion and government in United States from a sociological and theological perspective, see 19 J. of Pub. L. 283 (1970). For article, "Obscenity Law: A Public Policy Analysis," see 20 J. of Pub. L. 503 (1971). For article, "The Principle of Nondivisiveness and the Constitutionality of Public Aid to Parochial Schools," see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 429 (1971). For article discussing Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem. Presbyterian Church, 396 U.S. 1041, 90 S. Ct. 680 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 685 (1970), and the status of the theory of the implied trust on local church properties in favor of parent organization, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 515 (1971). For article on the judicial development of U.S. Const., Amend. 14 due process clause and the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 533 (1971). For article advocating absolutist interpretation of this amendment and rejecting clear and present danger, and balancing tests, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 473 (1972). For article, "Privacy in the Corporate State: A Constitutional Value of Dwindling Significance," see 22 J. of Pub. L. 3 (1973). For article discussing the validity of contempt of court sanctions based upon a party's disobedience of an injunction constituting a void prior restraint of constitutionally-protected activity, see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 246 (1973). For article, "The Response of Georgia's Public School Systems to the School Prayer Decisions: 'Whipping a Dead Horse,' " see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 425 (1973). For article, "The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties: 1973-1974," see 23 Emory L.J. 905 (1974). For article discussing obscenity laws and their conflict with this amendment, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 291 (1974). For article, "Teachers' Freedom of Expression Within the Classroom: A Search for Standards," see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 837 (1974). For article, "The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties: 1974-1975," see 24 Emory L.J. 937 (1975). For article discussing uncertainty in the law of obscenity and suggesting proposals for avoiding resultant chilling effect, see 9 Ga. L. Rev. 533 (1975). For article, "Personal Liability of State Officials Under State and Federal Law," see 9 Ga. L. Rev. 821 (1975). For article, "Permissible Entanglement Under the Establishment Clause," see 25 Emory L.J. 17 (1976). For article discussing commercial speech and this amendment's protection, see 25 Emory L.J. 815 (1976). For article, "Sexual Privacy - Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions," see 13 Ga. St. B.J. 93 (1976). For article discussing constitutional rights of students to form religious clubs in the public school setting, and possible establishment problems, see 27 Emory L.J. 3 (1978). For article, "Federal Antibias Legislation and Academic Freedom: Some Problems With Enforcement Procedures," see 27 Emory L.J. 609 (1978). For article, "The Supreme Court on Privacy and the Press," see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 215 (1978). For article discussing private actions for invasion of privacy, see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 513 (1978). For article surveying cases dealing with criminal law and criminal procedure from June 1, 1977, through May 1978, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (1978). For article analyzing the relationship between the military and the right of individuals under this amendment to engage in political activities, see 28 Emory L.J. 3 (1979). For article, "Abortion, Poverty and the Equal Protection of the Laws," see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 505 (1979). For article, "Watchdogs and Leash Laws: Restraints on the Press," see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 615 (1979). For article discussing federal civil litigation, with respect to U.S. Const., Art. III, U.S. Const., Amends. 1, 14, and 15 issues, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 821 (1979). For article surveying judicial and legislative developments in Georgia's tort laws, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 229 (1979). For article, "Speech and Campaign Reform: Congress, The Courts and Community," see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 195 (1980). For article surveying 1979 fifth circuit decisions concerning rights of both public employees and prisoners, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 885 (1980). For article discussing the concept of a mandatory public service obligation for lawyers, see 29 Emory L.J. 997 (1980). For article, "The Constitutionality of Labor Unions' Collection and Use of Forced Dues for Non-Bargaining Purposes," see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 561 (1981). For article, "Constitutional Criminal Litigation," see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 993 (1981). For article surveying developments in Georgia constitutional law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 51 (1981). For article, "Regulation of Advertising by Lawyers in Georgia," see 18 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1981). For article discussing eleventh circuit court cases in the year 1981 dealing with constitutional civil law, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 1061 (1982). For survey article on constitutional law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 53 (1982). For survey article on local government law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 225 (1982). For article discussing and proposing a plan for regulation of corporate spending in ballot issue campaigns, see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 675 (1983). For article surveying 1982 Eleventh Circuit cases involving constitutional civil law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 1221 (1983). For annual survey of constitutional law, see 35 Mercer L. Rev. 73 (1983). For annual survey on constitutional law, see 36 Mercer L. Rev. 137 (1984). For article, "Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930," see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986). For article, "The Right to Refuse Psychiatric Treatment: Law and Medicine at the Interface," see 35 Emory L.J. 139 (1986). For article, Introduction to Symposium on Cable TV Regulation, see 35 Emory L.J. 555 (1986). For article, "Cable Leased Access and the Conflict Among First Amendment Rights and First Amendment Values," see 35 Emory L.J. 563 (1986). For article, "Religion and Law: The First Amendment in Historical Perspective," see 35 Emory L.J. 777 (1986). For article, "Constitutional Judgment on Non-public School Aid: Fresh Guidelines or New Roadblocks?," see 35 Emory L.J. 795 (1986). For article, "Employer and Consultant Reporting Under the LMRDA," see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 533 (1986). For survey of 1985 Eleventh Circuit cases on civil constitutional law, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1253 (1986). For survey of 1985 Eleventh Circuit cases on employment discrimination, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1315 (1986). For essay, "Standing and Rights," see 36 Emory L.J. 1195 (1987). For article, "Judicial Privilege," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 89 (1987). For article, "Religious Liberty Law and the States," see 3 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 19 (1987). For article, "A Case for Press Responsibility," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 771 (1987). For article, "Libel in the Media: A Reporter's Perspective," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 779 (1987). For article, "Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps: New Hope for Preserving Freedom of the Press," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 785 (1987). For article, "Taking Libel Reform Seriously," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 793 (1987). For article, "A Suggestion to End the Struggle over Libel," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 809 (1987). For article, "There's Got to Be a Better Way: Alternatives to the High Cost of Libel," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 819 (1987). For article, "Privacy, Emotional Distress, and the Limits of Libel Law Reform," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 835 (1987). For article, "Media Defendants Rediscover Common Law's 'Fair Report' Privilege As Supreme Court Expands Access to Judicial Proceedings While Limiting First Amendment Protection," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 859 (1987). For article, "Awards of Damages for Mental Anguish Without Proof of Harm to Reputation: Is There Parasitic or Independent Life After Gertz?," see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 881 (1987). For article, "Contempt of Court in Georgia", see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 66 (1987). For article, "State Bar Strengthens Legislative Efforts," see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 116 (1987). For article, "Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987). For article, "Is Disparity a Problem," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1988). For article, "Juvenileness: A Single-Edged Constitutional Sword," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 949 (1988). For article, "Religious Symbols and the Establishment of a National 'Religion,' " see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 495 (1988). For survey of 1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on constitutional law - civil, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1169 (1988). For survey of 1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on employment discrimination, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1215 (1988). For survey of Eleventh Circuit cases on evidence, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1259 (1988). For annual survey of constitutional law, see 40 Mercer L. Rev. 117 (1988). For article, "Public Employees and the First Amendment," see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 24 (1988). For article, "Rethinking the Ban on General Solicitation," see 38 Emory L.J. 67 (1989). For article, "The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC," see 38 Emory L.J. 714 (1989). For article, "A Senate of Five: An Essay on Sexuality and Law," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 859 (1989). For article, "Metaphor and Paradox," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 1053 (1989).

For article, "On a Medical Moraine: Religious Dimensions of American Constitutionalism," see 39 Emory L.J. 9 (1990). For article, "Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860," see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990). For article, "Religious Freedom and the Challenge of the Modern State," see 39 Emory L.J. 149 (1990). For article, "Religion and the Constitution of the American Political System," see 39 Emory L.J. 165 (1990). For article, "Republic and Liberal State: The Place of Religion in an Ambiguous Polity," see 39 Emory L.J. 191 (1990). For article, "Securities Regulation and the First Amendment," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 223 (1990). For article, "Federal and State 'State Action': The Undercritical Embrace of a Hypercriticized Doctrine," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 327 (1990). For essay, "The Prospects for a Revival of Conservative Activism in Constitutional Jurisprudence," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 629 (1990). For article, "Lemon or Marsh? An Establishment Clause Conundrum," see 41 Mercer L. Rev. 1131 (1990). For article surveying developments in Georgia constitutional law during 1989, see 41 Mercer L. Rev. 1261 (1990). For article, "Religious Exemptions As Affirmative Action," see 40 Emory L.J. 77 (1991). For annual eleventh circuit survey of constitutional law - civil, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 1313 (1991). For article, "The Theology and Politics of the First Amendment Religion Clauses: A Bicentennial Essay," see 40 Emory L.J. 489 (1991). For article, "Introduction: The United States Bill of Rights, International Bill of Human Rights, and Other 'Bills' ", see 40 Emory L.J. 731 (1991). For article on free speech and school governance, see 26 Ga. L. Rev. 253 (1992). For annual eleventh circuit survey of constitutional law - civil, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 1075 (1992). For annual eleventh circuit survey of constitutional criminal law, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 1113 (1992). For article, "Secrecy Orders and Government Litigants: A Northwest Passage Around the Freedom of Information Act?", see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 121 (1992). For article, "Individual Rights and the Powers of Government," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 343 (1993). For article, "Conceptual Interdependence and Comparative Competence," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 391 (1993). For article, "The Structure of Rights," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 415 (1993). For article, "Rights as Trumps," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 463 (1993). For article, "Comment On: Making the Case for a Constitutional Right to Minimum Entitlements," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 567 (1993). For article, "On Legal Autonomy," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 737 (1993). For article, "Souring on Lemon: The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Doctrine in Transition," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 881 (1993). For article, "Constitutional Civil Law," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 1107 (1993). For article, "Distinguishing Speech from Conduct," see 45 Mercer L. Rev. 621 (1994). For article, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment: Phoenix Rising," see 45 Mercer L. Rev. 705 (1994). For article, "Camouflaged Incitement: Freedom of Speech, Communication Torts, and the Borderline of the Brandenburg Test," see 29 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1994). For article, "The First Amendment's Challenge Function and the Confusion in the Supreme Court's Contemporary Free Exercise Jurisprudence," see 29 Ga. L. Rev. 81 (1994). For article, "Annual Eleventh Circuit Survey January 1, 1993 - December 31, 1993: Constitutional Civil Law," see 45 Mercer L. Rev. 1217 (1994). For article, "The Power of Government to Regulate Class Discrimination by Religious Entities: A Study in Conflicting Values," see 43 Emory L.J. 1189 (1994). For article, "Tilting at Crosses: Nontaxpayer Standing to Sue Under the Establishment Clause," see 11 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 495 (1995). For article, "Slouching Towards Secularism: A Comment on Kiryas Joel School District v. Grument," see 44 Emory L.J. 433 (1995). For article, "1994 Eleventh Circuit Survey: Constitutional Civil Law," see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1275 (1995). For article, "Proposed Guidelines for Student Religious Speech and Observance in Public Schools," see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1017 (1995). For article, "Graduation Prayer After Lee v. Weisman: A Cautionary Tale," see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1097 (1995). For article, "The Threat to the American Idea of Religious Liberty," see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1123 (1995). For article, "The Ironic State of Religious Liberty in America," see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1157 (1995). For article, "The First Amendment: Has the Supreme Court Overlooked its Role as Guardian of our Freedom by Failing to Distinguish Between Real Threat and Mere Shadow?" see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1167 (1995). For survey of 1995 Eleventh Circuit cases on constitutional civil law, see 47 Mercer L. Rev. 745 (1996). For survey of 1995 Eleventh Circuit cases on employment discrimination, see 47 Mercer L. Rev. 797 (1996). For article, "Silence Is Not Golden: Protecting Lawyer Speech Under the First Amendment," see 47 Emory L.J. 859 (1998). For article, "Speaking Out Outside the Courtroom," see 47 Emory L.J. 889 (1998). For article, "Means and Ends and Food Lion: The Tension Between Exemption and Independence in Newsgathering by the Press," see 47 Emory L.J. 895 (1998). For article, "To Say 'I Do': Shahar v. Bowers, Same-Sex Marriage, and Public Employee Free Speech Rights," see 15 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 381 (1998). For article, "Of Communists and Anti-Abortion Protestors: The Consequences of Falling into the Theoretical Abyss," see 33 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1998). For article, "Core Societal Values Deserve Federal Aid: Schools, Tax Credits, and the Establishment Clause," see 34 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1999). For article, "Employment Law Responsibilities of Public Employers in Georgia," see 5 Ga. St. B.J. 10 (1999). For article, "Expressive Commerce in Cypberspace: Public Goods, Network Effects, and Free Speech," see 16 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 789 (2000). For article, "Three Arguments Against Mt. Healthy: Tort Theory, Constitutional Torts, and Freedom of Speech," see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 583 (2000). For article, "Mt. Healthy and Causation-in-Fact: The Court Still Doesn't Get It!" see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 603 (2000). For article, "An Essay on Texas v. Lesage," see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 621 (2000). For article, "Mt. Healthy, Causation, and Affirmative Defenses," see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 637 (2000). For article, "Purveyors of Hate on the Internet: Are We Ready for Hate Spam?" see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 379 (2000). For article, "Polygamists Out of the Closet: Statutory and State Constitutional Prohibitions Against Polygamy Are Unconstitutional Under the Free Exercise Clause," see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 691 (2001). Section 1983, the First Amendment, and public employee speech: shaping the right to fit the remedy (and vice versa), see 35 Ga. L. Rev. 939 (2001). The mischief of Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., see 35 Ga. L. Rev. 1087 (2001). Rewriting Near v. Minnesota: creating a complete definition of prior restraint, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 1087 (2001). Constitutional civil rights, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 1279 (2001). For article, "Free Speech and the Right to Offend: Old Wars, New Battles, Different Media," see 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 671 (2002). For article, "Statutory Civil Rights," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 1499 (2002). For article, "Constitutional Civil Rights," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 1315 (2002). For article, "Freedom of Expression, Democratic Norms, and Internet Governance," see 52 Emory L.J. 187 (2003). For article, "Constitutional Civil Rights," see 54 Mercer L. Rev. 1379 (2003). For article, "Qualified Immunity in the Eleventh Circuit After Hope v. Pelzer," see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 22 (2003). For article, "Hanging the Ten Commandments on the Wall Separating Church and State: Toward a New Establishment Clause Jurisprudence," see 38 Ga. L. Rev. 1329 (2004). For Eleventh Circuit survey article on constitutional civil rights decisions in 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1131 (2004). For article, "Video Games as a Protected Form of Expression," see 40 Ga. L. Rev. 153 (2005). For annual survey of criminal law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 113 (2005). "Government Regulation or Other 'Abridgements' of Scientific Research: The Proper Scope of Review under the First Amendment," see 54 Emory L.J. 979 (2005). For article, "Shame, Rage and Freedom of Speech: Should the United States Adopt European 'Mobbing' Laws?," see 35 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 53 (2006). For article, "The Foundations and Frontiers of Religious Liberty: A Symposium Convened by The Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University Sponsored by The Henry R. Luce Foundation," see 21 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 43 (2007). For article, "Freedom of the Press 2.0," see 42 Ga. L. Rev. 309 (2008). For article, "The Democratic Aspect of the Establishment Clause: A Refutation of the Argument that the Clause Serves to Protect Religious or Nonreligious Minorities," see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 595 (2008). For article, "Advancing the Consensus: 60 Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?," see 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 69 (2009). For article, "Constitutional Narratives: Constitutional Adjudication on the Religion Clauses in Australia and Malaysia," see 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 437 (2009). For article, "Religious Freedom, Democracy, and International Human Rights," see 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 583 (2009). For article, "Sex In and Out of Intimacy," see 59 Emory L.J. 809 (2010). For article, "The Most Important (and Best) Supreme Court Opinions and Justices," see 60 Emory L.J. 408 (2010). For article, "A New Conception of Israeli Grundnorm: The Jewish Immigration 'Trump Card' as the Solution to the Falasha Mura Exception," see 24 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 357 (2010). For article, "Terrorism, Historical Analogies, and Modern Choices," see 24 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 589 (2010). For article, "'I'm Not Gay, M'Kay?': Should Falsely Calling Someone a Homosexual be Defamatory?," see 44 Ga. L. Rev. 739 (2010). For article, "Defense Against Outrage and the Perils of Parasitic Torts," see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 107 (2010). For article, "Contrasting Concurrences of Clarence Thomas: Deploying Originalism and Paternalism in Commercial and Student Speech Cases," see 26 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 321 (2010). For article, "The Future of Music: Reconfiguring Public Performance Rights," see 17 J. Intell. Prop. L. 207 (2010). For article, "Practice Point: Right of Publicity: A Practitioner's Enigma," see 17 J. Intell. Prop. L. 351 (2010). For article, "Religious Symbols on Government Property: Lift High the Cross? Contrasting the New European and American Cases on Religious Symbols on Government Property," see 25 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 5 (2011). For article, "Noah's Curse: How Religion Often Conflates Status, Believe, and Conduct to Resist Antidiscrimination Norms," see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 657 (2011). For article, "Deporting Families: Legal Matter or Political Question?," see 27 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 489 (2011). For article, "Bullying in Public Schools: The Intersection Between the Student's Free Speech Rights and the School's Duty to Protect," see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 407 (2011). For article, "The Constitutional Right not to Kill," see 62 Emory L.J. 121 (2012). For article, "State Government: Open and Public Meetings," see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 139 (2012). For article, "Public Officers and Employees: Division of Archives and History," see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 214 (2012). For annual survey on criminal law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 83 (2012). For annual survey on local government law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 213 (2012). For annual survey on real property, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 255 (2012). For article, "Practice Point: You Look Complicated Today: Representing an Illegal Graffiti Artist in a Copyright Infringement Case Against a Major International Retailer," see 20 J. Intell. Prop. L. 75 (2012). For article, "Having it Both Ways: How Charter Schools Try to Obtain Funding of Public Schools and the Autonomy of Private Schools," see 63 Emory L. J. 303 (2013). For article, "Watson, Walton, and the History of Legal Transplants," see 41 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 637 (2013). For article, "(Mis)Conceptions of the Corporation," see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 731 (2013). For article, "Narrative Pluralism and Doctrinal Incoherance in Hosanna-Tabor," see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 405 (2013). For article, "Employment Discrimination," see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 891 (2013). For article, "Evil Angel Eulogy: Reflections on the Passing of the Obscenity Defense in Copyright," see 20 J. Intell. Prop. L. 209 (2013). For article, "How Law Made Silicon Valley," see 63 Emory L. J. 239 (2014). For article, "Terrorism and Associations," see 63 Emory L. J. 581 (2014). For article, "The Efficacy of Cybersecurity Regulation," see 30 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 287 (2014). For article, "Sentencing Adjudication: Lessons from Child Pornography Policy Nullification," see 30 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 375 (2014). For article, "Public Officers and Employees: Employees' Insurance and Benefit Plans," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 177 (2014). For article, "Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2013: Article: Constitutional Criminal Procedure," see 65 Emory L.J. 891 (2014). For article, "Lobbying in the Shadows: Religious Interest Groups in the Legislative Process," see 64 Emory L.J. 1041 (2015). For article, "Religious Arguments by Citizens to Influence Public Policy: The Lessons of the Establishment Clause," see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 273 (2015). For article, "Original Misunderstandings: The Implications of Misreading History in Jones," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 471 (2015). For article, "Copyright = Speech," see 65 Emory L.J. 199 (2015). For article, "Freedom from Thought," see 65 Emory L.J. 291 (2015). For article, "Speech or Conduct? The Free Speech Claim of Wedding Vendors," see 65 Emory L.J. 241 (2015). For article, "Southern Dreams and a New Theory of First Amendment Legal Realism," see 65 Emory L.J. 303 (2015). For article, "Transparency in First Amendment Doctrine," see 65 Emory L.J. 359 (2015). For article, "On the Distinction Between Speech and Action," see 65 Emory L.J. 427 (2015). For article, "Uncertainty is the Only Certainty: A Five Category Test to Clarify the Unsure Boundaries Between Content Based and Content Neutral Restrictions on Speech," see 65 Emory L.J. 455 (2015). For article, "The Categorical Free Speech Doctrine and Contextualization," see 65 Emory L.J. 495 (2015). For article, "Lobbying in the Shadows: Religious Interest Groups in the Legislative Process," see 64 Emory L.J. 1041 (2015). For article, "The Copymark Creep: How the Normative Standards of Fan Communities Can Rescue Copyright," see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 459 (2015). For article, "Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014: Employment Discrimination," see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 927 (2015). For article, "Revenge Pornography and First Amendment Exceptions," see 65 Emory L.J. 661 (2016). For article, "Freedom of Conscience in War Time: World War I and the Limits of Civil Liberties," see 65 Emory L.J. 1051 (2016). For article, "Secret Jurisdiction," see 65 Emory L.J. 1313 (2016). For article, "Contraceptive Coverage Falls, No More: Using RFRA to Limit the Scope of Religious Challenges to the ACA's Contraceptive Mandate," see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 435 (2016). For article, "Cyber Espionage and Electronic Surveillance Beyond the Media Coverage," see 66 Emory L.J. 513 (2017). For article, "Hiding in Plain Sight: A Fourth Amendment Framework for Analyzing Government Surveillance in Public," see 66 Emory L.J. 527 (2017). For article, "How Both the EU and the U.S. are 'Stricter' Than Each Other for the Privacy of Government Requests for Information," see 66 Emory L.J. 617 (2017). For article, "From the Crime Scene to the Courtroom: The Future of Forensic Science Reform: The First Amendment Case for Public Access to Secret Algorithms Used in Criminal Trials," see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 915 (2018). For article, "From the Crime Scene to the Courtroom: The Future of Forensic Science Reform: Symposium Keynote Address: Uncovering Forensic Laws: An Outside Perspective," see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1221 (2018). For article, "Walking the Line: Modern Gerrymandering and Partisanship," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 1011 (2018). For article, "The First Amendment Case Against Partisan Gerrymandering," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 1042 (2018). For article, "Constitutional Preservation and the Judicial Review of Partisan Gerrymanders," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 1108 (2018). For article, "Black and White Make Gray: Common Cause v. Kemp, What's the Trigger for Purging Voters?," see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 947 (2018). For article, "A Look Back at Reed v. Town of Gilbert," see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 987 (2018). For annual survey on employment discrimination, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 1117 (2018). For annual survey on healthcare law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 1209 (2018). For article, "The Uses of IP Misuse," see 68 Emory L.J. 739 (2019). For article, "Sex Crimes in the 21st Century: Human Trafficking, Pornography, and Prostitution Church, State and Sex Crimes: What Place for Traditional Sexual Morality in Modern Liberal Societies?," see 68 Emory L.J. 837 (2019). For article, "Sex Crimes in the 21st Century: Human Trafficking, Pornography, and Prostitution the Problems with Pornography Regulation: Lessons from History," see 68 Emory L.J. 867 (2019). For article, "Sex Crimes in the 21st Century: Human Trafficking, Pornography, and Prostitution Changing Faces: Morphed Child Pornography Images and the First Amendment," see 68 Emory L.J. 909 (2019). For article, "Sex Crimes in the 21st Century: Human Trafficking, Pornography, and Prostitution Therapeutic Expression," see 68 Emory L.J. 939 (2019). For article, "Partisan Gerrymandering and the Constitutionalization of Statistics," see 68 Emory L.J. 979 (2019). For article, "Coerced Choice: School Vouchers and Students with Disabilities," see 68 Emory L.J. 1037 (2019). For article, "The Costs of Changing Our Minds," see 69 Emory L.J. 75 (2019). For article, "Hush Don't Say a Word: Safeguarding Students' Freedom of Expression in the Trump Era," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 251 (2019). For article, "Back to the Drawing Board! Legislating Hollywood: A Regulation that Resolves the Film Industry's Conflict Between the First and Fourteenth Amendments," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 605 (2019). For article, "Cybersecurity Oversight Liability," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 663 (2019). For article, "Transcript: Abortion and Gay Rights," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 871 (2019). For article, "Transcript: Free Speech and Freedom of Religion," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 937 (2019). For article, "A Constitutional Counterpunch to Georgia's Anti-SLAPP Statute," see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 407 (2019). For article, "Famous in a Small Town: Indeterminacy and Doctrinal Confusion in Micro-Public-Figure Doctrine," see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 381 (2019). For annual survey on employment discrimination, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 989 (2019). For article, “Free Speech and Off-Label Rights,” see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 463 (2020).

For note, "Communist Aliens and the Right to Bail," see 2 J. of Pub. L. 165 (1953). For note discussing compulsory medical attention in light of constitutional protection of freedom of religion, see 22 Ga. B.J. 558 (1960). For note criticizing court reliance on "wall of separation" doctrine in interpreting "no establishment" clause, see 25 Ga. B.J. 319 (1963). For note discussing prejudicial publicity before and during trial in light of Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507 , 16 L. Ed. 2 d 600 (1966), see 16 J. of Pub. L. 215 (1967). For note advocating a separate obscenity standard for youth as a potential court escape route from the United States Supreme Court's "Supercensor" role, see 1 Ga. L. Rev. 707 (1967). For note suggesting the demise of the "Child Benefit" theory in regards to appropriation of public funds for transportation of pupils to private and public schools, see 18 Mercer L. Rev. 453 (1967). For note criticizing school policies governing student personal appearance, see 17 J. Pub. L. 151 (1968). For note criticizing Quiner v. Quiner, 57 Cal. Rptr. 503 (Ct. App. 1967), holding abnormal religious convictions of mother were not sufficient grounds upon which to deny custody of child, see 17 J. of Pub. L. 193 (1968). For note, "Substantive Due Process and Felony Treatment of Pot Smokers: The Current Conflict," see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 247 (1968). For notes, "Extension of Sullivan's Actual Malice Standard to Defamation of Public Figures," see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 393 (1968). For note discussing free speech and the parameters of the concept of "state action" in light of Food Employees Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308, 88 S. Ct. 1601 , 20 L. Ed. 2 d 603 (1968), see 20 Mercer L. Rev. 297 (1969). For note discussing the constitutional origins of the substantive right to family autonomy, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 719 (1969). For note discussing limitations on national police power under this amendment, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 359 (1970). For note discussing the unique position of policemen and firemen in reference to labor-management relations, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 540 (1971). For note on public aid to private sectarian schools in light of this amendment, see 25 Mercer L. Rev. 349 (1974). For note discussing this amendment's protections afforded probationers, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 466 (1974). For note discussing teachers' freedom of expression outside the classroom, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 900 (1974). For note, "Behind Closed Doors: An Empirical Inquiry Into the Nature of Prison Discipline in Georgia," see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 919 (1974). For note, "Constitutionality of State Residency Requirements for Bar Admission," see 24 Emory L.J. 425 (1975). For note discussing constitutionality of zoning ordinances prohibiting clustering of adult movie theatres, in light of American Mini Theatres, Inc. v. Gribbs, 518 F.2d 1014 (6th Cir. 1975), see 10 Ga. L. Rev. 275 (1975). For note discussing the constitutionality of limiting political campaign costs and contributions in light of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 659 (1976), see 25 Emory L.J. 400 (1976). For note analyzing sovereign immunity in this state and proposing implementation of a waiver scheme and creation of a court of claims pursuant to Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. V, see 27 Emory L.J. 717 (1978). For note applying this amendment's free speech tests to commercial and noncommercial defamation of corporations and their products and services, see 27 Emory L.J. 755 (1978). For note discussing this amendment's right of free speech as a source of enlightened and effective decision making by the citizenry, see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 811 (1978). For note on standards of fault governing litigants in defamation actions in light of this amendment's rights, see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 841 (1978). For note discussing the constitutional conflicts between civil rights and the free exercise of religion in private, racially segregated sectarian schools, see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 1099 (1978). For note, "Constitutionally Implied Causes of Action: A Policy of Protection, Expansion, or Restriction?" see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 1023 (1979). For note, "Christmas Carols in School Assemblies May be Constitutional," see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 627 (1980). For note, "Municipal Display of Religious Symbol Enjoined in California," see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 637 (1980). For note as to this amendment's rights of expression on shopping center property, see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 637 (1981). For note discussing abortion regulation in light of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 , 35 L. Ed. 2 d 147 (1973), see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 681 (1981). For note on broadcast negligence and the first amendment, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 423 (1981). For note, "The Common Law Right to Inspect and Copy Judicial Records: In Camera or on Camera," see 16 Ga. L. Rev. 659 (1982). For note, "Conditioning Access to the Public Forum on the Purchase of Insurance," see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 815 (1983). For note, "An Assessment of the Use of Cameras in State and Federal Courts," see 18 Ga. L. Rev. 389 (1984). For note discussing the constitutionality of publicly displaying a creche, see 36 Mercer L. Rev. 409 (1984). For note, "Circling the Wagons: Informational Privacy and Family Testimonial Privileges," see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 173 (1985). For note, "Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence: The Demise of First Amendment Protection for Symbolic Expression?" see 36 Mercer L. Rev. 1371 (1985). For note, "Zanderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel: More Competition in the Legal Marketplace Through Advertising," see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1649 (1986). For note, "The Striker Amendment to the Food Stamp Act: Politics Chipping Away at the Union, Family, and Social Welfare," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 741 (1988). For note, "Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Wake of Bowers v. Hardwick," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 773 (1988). For note, "Sharpening the Prongs of the Establishment Clause: Applying Stricter Scrutiny to Majority Religions," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 1085 (1989). For note, "The Equal Access Act and Mergens: Balancing the Religion Clauses in Public Schools," see Ga. L. Rev. 1141 (1990). For note, "Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: What Remains of the Right to Choose?," see 41 Mercer L. Rev. 769 (1990). For note, "Florida Star v. B.J.F.: Can the State Regulate the Press in the Interest of Protecting the Privacy of Rape Victims?," see 41 Mercer L. Rev. 1061 (1990). For note, "Freedom of Religion Doesn't Mean Freedom From All Taxes: A Study of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California," see 41 Mercer L. Rev. 1481 (1990). For note, "Free Exercise: A 'Hollow Promise' for the Native American in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith," see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 1597 (1991). For note, "Klan, Cloth and Constitution: Anti-mask Laws and the First Amendment," see 25 Ga. L. Rev. 819 (1991). For note, "Stalking the Stalker: Developing New Laws to Thwart Those Who Terrorize Others," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 285 (1992). For note, "Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary: If at First You Don't Succeed . . .," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 959 (1993). For note, "Lee v. Weisman: No Reason to Give Thanks," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 985 (1993). For note, "R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul: The Right Decision, Flawed Reasoning," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 1015 (1993). For note, "Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc.: Advertisement for Hit Man Brings Four Million Dollar Hit to Publisher," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 1349 (1993). For note on First Amendment protection of a religion's practice of animal sacrifice, see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 1357 (1993). For note, "Constitutional Conflict: The Establishment Clause Meets the Free Speech Clause in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District," see 45 Mercer L. Rev. 875 (1994). For note, "Discussing Constitutional Problems with the 1992 Cable Act Must-Carry Regulation," see 11 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 429 (1995). For note, "Discussing Regulation of Pornography on Integrated Broadband Telecommunications Networks," see 11 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 465 (1995). For note on peremptory challenges based on religious affiliation in the jury selection process, see 29 Ga. L. Rev. 493 (1995). For note, "Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet: A Missed Opportunity for the Supreme Court to Clarify Establishment Clause Analysis," see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1189 (1995). For note, "First Amendment Facelift?: Rehnquist Court Crafts New Scrutiny Level for Content-Neutral, Speech Restricting Injunctions in Madsen v. Women's Health Center," see 46 Mercer L. Rev. No. 3 (1995). For note, "Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich: Applying Overbreath Analysis to Post-Viability Abortion Regulations", see 30 Ga. L. Rev. 1151 (1996). For note, "Tilting at Windmills: Defamation and the Private Person in Cyberspace", see 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 547 (1996). For review of 1996 civil practice legislation, see 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 23 (1996). For review of 1996 legislation relating to filming or videotaping in the courtroom, see 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 83 (1996). For note, "Another Case of Freedom vs. Safety: Stretching the First Amendment to Protect the Publication of Murder Manuals - Brandenburg Need Not Apply?" see 14 Ga. St. U.L. 875 (1998). For note, "National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley: First Amendment Free Speech No Longer Guaranteed for the Arts," see 50 Mercer L. Rev. 791 (1999). For note, "Dale v. Boy Scouts of America: New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination Weights the Balance Between The First Amendment and the State's Compelling Interest in Eradicating Discrimination," see 16 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 3871 (1999). For note, "Chandler v. James: Welcoming Student Prayer Back in the Schoolhouse Gate," see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 1309 (2000). For note, "Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. United States: A Retreat from Full First Amendment Protection for Commercial Speech," see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 945 (2000). For note, "Bartnicki v. Vopper: The First Amendment versus Privacy and the Ghost of Louis Brandeis," see 53 MercerL. Rev. 893 (2002). For note, see "Filtering Software in Public Libraries: Traditional Collection Decision or Congressionally Induced First Amendment Violation?," see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1029 (2004). For note, "Locke v. Davey: The Fine Line Between Free Exercise and Establishment," see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 1093 (2005). For note, "Where's the Wall? Church Property Disputes within the Civil Courts and the Need for Consistent Application of the Law," see 39 Ga. L. Rev. 1027 (2005). For note, "Balancing the First Amendment And Child Protection Goals in Legal Approaches to Restricting Children's Access to Violent Video Games: A Comparison of Germany And the United States," see 34 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 743 (2006). For note, "Sticks and Stones and Shotguns at School: The Ineffectiveness of Constitutional Antibullying Legislation as a Response to School Violence," see 39 Ga. L. Rev. 1109 (2005). For note, "The Future of the Lemon Test: A Sweeter Alternative for Establishment Clause Analysis," 40 Ga. L. Rev. 1171 (2006). For note, "Holy Moses: What Do We Do With the Ten Commandments?," see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 645 (2006). For note, "Learning Lessons from Multani: Considering Canada's Response to Religious Garb Issues in Public Schools," see 36 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 159 (2007). For note, "Official, National, Common or Unifying: Do Words Giving Legal Status to Language Diminish Linguistic Human Rights?," see 36 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 221 (2007). For note, "Think Twice Before You Type: Blogging Your Way to Unemployment," see 42 Ga. L. Rev. 615 (2008). For note, "The 'Scope of a Student': How to Analyze Student Speech in the Age of the Internet," see 42 Ga. L. Rev. 1127 (2008). For casenote, "Signed, Your Coach: Restricting Speech in Athletic Recruiting in Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n v. Brentwood Academy," see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 1027 (2008). For note, "A Bridge Too Far? Directive 1344.10 and the Military's Inroads on Core Political Speech in Campaign Media," see 44 Ga. L. Rev. 837 (2010). For note, "Defending Against a Charge of Obscenity in the Internet Age: How Google Searches Can Illuminate Miller's 'Contemporary Community Standards'," see 26 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1029 (2010). For note, "The Thrill of Victory, and the Agony of the Tweet: Online Social Media, the Non-Copyrightability of Events, and How to Avoid a Looming Crisis by Changing Norms," see 17 J. Intell. Prop. L. 445 (2010). For note, "Bay Area Rapid Transit Actions of August 11, 2011: How Emerging Digital Technologies Intersect with First Amendment Rights," see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 783 (2013). For note, "An 'Exception' - Ally Difficult Situation: Do the Exceptions, or Lack Thereof, to the 'Speech-and-Display Requirements' for Abortion Invalidate Their Use as Informed Consent?," see 30 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 521 (2014). For note, "A Compelling Interest? Using Old Conceptions of Public Health Law to Challenge the Affordable Care Act's Contraceptive Mandate," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 613 (2015). For note, "Let My People Grow: Putting a Number on Strict Scrutiny in the Wake of Holt v. Hobbs," see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 297 (2016). For note, "Civil Liberty or National Security: The Battle Over IPhone Encryption," see 33 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 485 (2017). For note, "You have the Right to Free Speech: Retaliatory Arrests and the Pretext of Probable Cause," see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 607 (2017). For note, "A (Thigh) Gap in the Law: Addressing Egregious Digital Manipulation of Celebrity Images," see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 795 (2018). For note, "Big Brother is Watching: When Should Georgia Get Involved in Issues of Family Privacy to Protect Children's Liberties?," see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 819 (2018). For note, "United States v. Osman: Including Future Therapy Costs in Mandatory Restitution Awards is the Growing Trend Among Circuits, but is it Wise?," see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 969 (2018). For note, "Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide: Comparing and Contrasting Washington's Death with Dignity Act and Pharmacy Regulations After the Ninth Circuit's Decision in Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 613 (2018). For note, "Talk Isn't Cheap: Protecting Freedom of Speech in Light of Georgia's Anti-Boycott Legislation," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 967 (2018). For note, "How Devolved is Too Devolved?: A Comparative Analysis Examining the Allocation of Power Between State and Local Government Through the Lens of the Confederate Monument Controversy," see 53 Ga. L. Rev. 371 (2018). For note, "No Place for Speech Zones: How Colleges Engage in Expressive Gerrymandering," see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 387 (2019). For note, "Partisan Gerrymandering and Georgia: Red, White, and Blue or Just Red and Blue?" see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 487 (2019). For note, "Mandatory Fees No More!: Janus v. AFSCME Continues First Amendment Trend and Effectively Eliminates Union Power," see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 799 (2019). For note, "Injunction Junction, What's Your Function? Crafting Permanent Injunctions to be Appropriate Remedies in Defamation Cases," see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 663 (2020). For note, "State of the Unions: The Impact of Janus on Public University Student Fees," see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 735 (2020).

For comment on Hague v. Committee for Indus. Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 59 S. Ct. 954 , 83 L. Ed. 1423 (1939), holding unconstitutional ordinances denying permission to hold meetings and distribute pamphlets to labor organizers, see 2 Ga. B.J. 61 (1939). For comment on Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 108 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1939), holding unconstitutional compulsory flag-salute regulation in school, see 2 Ga. B.J. 74 (1940). For comment on Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 , 84 L. Ed. 155 (1939), holding unconstitutional municipal ordinances prohibiting distribution of handbills in public places, see 2 Ga. B.J. 76 (1940). For comment on Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900 , 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940), holding power of public official to determine what is a religious cause is unconstitutional infringement upon religious liberty, see 3 Ga. B.J. 68 (1940). For comment on Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S. Ct. 190 , 86 L. Ed. 192 (1941), holding free speech and press guarantees extend to publication concerning judicial proceedings pending in court, see 4 Ga. B.J. 63 (1942). For comment as to constitutional permissibility of state and municipal ordinances requiring permit to distribute religious literature, in light of Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 63 S. Ct. 669 , 87 L. Ed. 869 (1943), see 5 Ga. B.J. 70 (1943). For comment on West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178 , 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943), holding unconstitutional state law requiring flag salute by students, see 6 Ga. B.J. 249 (1944). For comment on United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S. Ct. 556 , 91 L. Ed. 754 (1947), upholding constitutionality of Hatch Act curbing political activity of state and federal employees, see 9 Ga. B.J. 459 (1947). For comment on Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504 , 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947), upholding constitutionality of public transportation to children attending parochial schools, see 9 Ga. B.J. 461 (1947). For comment on McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 68 S. Ct. 461 , 92 L. Ed. 649 (1948), holding constitutionally impermissible religious education classes held during school hours, see 10 Ga. B.J. 499 (1948). For comment on Local 309, United Furn. Workers v. Gates, 75 F. Supp. 620 (N.D. Ind. 1948), holding presence of state police officers at union meeting denies workers' freedoms of speech and assembly, see 11 Ga. B.J. 233 (1948). For comment discussing permissible scope of statutes defining unlawful speech, in light of Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S. Ct. 894 , 93 L. Ed. 1131 (1949), see 1 Mercer L. Rev. 114 (1949). For comment discussing right to distribute religious material in apartment house, in light of Hall v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 72, 49 S.E.2d 369 (1948), see 11 Ga. B.J. 369 (1949). For comment discussing right of parents to teach and instruct children, in light of Rice v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 224, 49 S.E.2d 342 (1948), see 11 Ga. B.J. 376 (1949). For comment on Lawson v. United States, 176 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir. 1949), holding rights of privacy and free association permitted script writers to refuse answers to H.U.A.C. questions on Communist party affiliations, see 12 Ga. B.J. 222 (1949). For comment discussing constitutionality of local motion picture censorship laws, in light of RD-DR Corp. & Film Classics, Inc. v. Smith, 183 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1950), see 13 Ga. B.J. 248 (1950). For comment on Doremus v. Board of Educ., 5 N.J. 435, 75 A.2d 880 (1950), holding constitutional statutes requiring Bible reading without comment in public school classrooms, see 13 Ga. B.J. 360 (1951). For comment discussing clear and present danger test, in light of United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1950), see 13 Ga. B.J. 361 (1951). For comment discussing the constitutional issues involved in releasing students from public schools for periodic religious training, in light of Zorach v. Clauson, 303 N.Y. 161, 100 N.E.2d 463 (1951), aff'd, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S. Ct. 679 , 96 L. Ed. 954 (1952), see 1 J. of Pub. L. 212 (1952). For comment discussing the constitutional conflicts involved where outside events, especially press coverage, tends to influence a defendant's opportunity for a fair trial, in light of Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50, 71 S. Ct. 549 , 95 L. Ed. 40 (1951), see 1 J. of Pub. L. 217 (1952). For comment "Moving Picture Censorship and the First Amendment," focusing on Burstyn v. Wilson, 278 App. Div. 253, 104 N.Y.S.2d 470 (1951), see 1 J. of Pub. L. 224 (1952). For comment "State Regulation of the Hatemonger," focusing on Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725 , 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952), see 1 J. of Pub. L. 519 (1952). For comment on Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S. Ct. 215 , 97 L. Ed. 216 (1952), as to constitutionality of loyalty oath for public employees, see 2 J. of Pub. L. 188 (1953). For comment on limits of state's control over church's disposition of property, in light of Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 73 S. Ct. 143 , 97 L. Ed. 120 (1952), see 2 J. of Pub. L. 191 (1953). For comment on Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S. Ct. 679 , 96 L. Ed. 954 (1952), see 15 Ga. B.J. 363 (1953). For comment on Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725 , 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952), see 15 Ga. B.J. 366 (1953). For comment on Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 73 S. Ct. 526 , 97 L. Ed. 828 (1953), see 16 Ga. B.J. 95 (1953). For comment discussing motion picture censorship, in light of Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 346 U.S. 587, 74 S. Ct. 286 , 98 L. Ed. 329 (1954), see 5 Mercer L. Rev. 325 (1954). For comment on United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 73 S. Ct. 543 , 97 L. Ed. 770 (1953), holding the term "lobbying activities" within the meaning of a congressional resolution authorizing committee investigation does not include all activities other than representations made to members of Congress of one intending to influence legislation, such as the sale of books of a particular political nature, see 16 Ga. B.J. 350 (1954). For comment on New Am. Library of World Literature v. Allen, 114 F. Supp. 823 (N.D. Ohio 1953), holding police chief's threatening of local distributors with prosecution for sale of obscene literature published by plaintiff to the extralegal and beyond the scope of his authority, see 16 Ga. B.J. 494 (1954). For comment, "The 'Right to Work': Individual or Collective Right," focusing on Railway Employees' Dep't v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S. Ct. 714 , 100 L. Ed. 1112 (1956), see 6 J. of Pub. L. 263 (1957). For comment on International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U.S. 284, 77 S. Ct. 1166 , 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1347 (1957) as to the constitutionality of enjoining picketing, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 534 (1957). For comment on Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S. Ct. 1325 , 1 L. Ed. 2 d 1469 (1957), upholding the enjoining under a New York statute of distribution of certain obscene books, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 548 (1957). For comment on First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles, 48 Cal. 2d 419, 311 P.2d 508 (1957), upholding requirement of loyalty oath as prerequisite to tax exemption, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 555 (1957). For comment on Methodist Fed'n for Social Action v. Eastland, 141 F. Supp. 729 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (three judges sitting), holding that the federal district court could not prevent the publication of a congressional handbook even though it falsely and defamatorily stated that plaintiff organization was a communist front, see 19 Ga. B.J. 366 (1957). For comment on Railway Employes' Dep't v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S. Ct. 714 , 100 L. Ed. 1112 (1956), see 19 Ga. B.J. 550 (1957). For comment on Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 77 S. Ct. 1203 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 1311 (1957), reversing a contempt conviction where appellant refused to testify on this amendment grounds, see 20 Ga. B.J. 411 (1958). For comment on Looper v. Georgia S. & F. Ry., 213 Ga. 279 , 99 S.E.2d 101 (1957), holding that a shop agreement requiring employees to become a member of a labor organization and contribute dues to be distributed among various political organizations was in violation of the employees' rights as one cannot constitutionally be compelled to contribute moneys to support ideas which one opposes, see 20 Ga. B.J. 540 (1958). For comment on applicability of this amendment to the gathering of news, in light of Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1958), see 8 J. of Pub. L. 596 (1959). For comment discussing the constitutionality of the statutory prohibition against expenditures by labor unions in connection with federal elections, 18 U.S.C. § 610, see 21 Ga. B.J. 575 (1959). For comment on Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 101 Ga. App. 105 , 113 S.E.2d 148 (1960), see 12 Mercer L. Rev. 284 (1960). For comment regarding right of witness in congressional contempt proceeding to refuse to testify under this amendment and U.S. Const., Amend. 5, in light of Barrenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S. Ct. 1081 , 3 L. Ed. 2 d 1115 (1959), see 22 Ga. B.J. 404 (1960). For comment discussing constitutionality of prior restraint of distribution of anonymous handbills, in light of California v. Talley, 172 Cal. App. 2d 797, 332 P.2d 447 (1958), see 23 Ga. B.J. 123 (1960). For comment on Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, 362 U.S. 1, 80 S. Ct. 527 , 4 L. Ed. 2 d 494 (1959), holding due process not denied employees summarily dismissed for invocation of this amendment and U.S. Const., Amend. 5 before congressional subcommittee, see 23 Ga. B.J. 267 (1960). For comment on Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 74 , 114 S.E.2d 421 (1960), see 23 Ga. B.J. 406 (1961). For comment on Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, 81 S. Ct. 391 , 5 L. Ed. 2 d 403 (1961), holding censorship standards set by state to prevent public display of obscenity do not constitute prior restraint, see 23 Ga. B.J. 554 (1961). For comment discussing constitutionality of state loyalty oaths, in light of Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S. Ct. 247 , 5 L. Ed. 2 d 231 (1960), see 23 Ga. B.J. 556 (1961). For comment on Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 601 (1962), and the unconstitutionality of state composed prayer in a public school, see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 284 (1962). For comment discussing constitutionality of legislation requiring employees to pay dues to railway union in order to maintain employment, in light of International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S. Ct. 784 , 6 L. Ed. 2 d 1141 (1961), see 24 Ga. B.J. 432 (1962). For comment on Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 1961), holding black muslimism is religion within meaning of this amendment, see 24 Ga. B.J. 519 (1962). For comment on Anderson v. Martin, 206 F. Supp. 700 (D. La. 1962), holding designation of race of candidates on ballot does not violate constitutional rights, see 25 Ga. B.J. 416 (1963). For comment discussing motion picture as protected as speech, in light of Atlanta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 219 Ga. 271 , 133 S.E.2d 12 (1963), see 26 Ga. B.J. 442 (1964). For comment discussing immunity of the press from libel or slander suit by "public official" in light of Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 S. Ct. 669 , 15 L. Ed. 2 d 597 (1966), see 17 Mercer L. Rev. 476 (1966). For comment on Corinth Publications, Inc. v. Wesberry, 221 Ga. 704 , 146 S.E.2d 767 (1966), as to determination of obscenity, see 17 Mercer L. Rev. 478 (1966). For comment on Reed v. Garner, 261 F. Supp. 87 (C.D. Cal. 1966), holding denial of medicare benefits to member of communist affiliated group as an infringement on this amendment's rights, see 16 J. of Pub. L. 240 (1967). For comment on Reed v. Gardner, 261 F. Supp. 87 (C.D. Cal. 1966) as to constitutionality of inquiry into Medicare applicant's political affiliation, see 18 Mercer L. Rev. 495 (1967). For comment discussing standard of malice in cases involving reckless disregard of truth, in light of St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323 , 20 L. Ed. 2 d 262 (1968), see 17 J. of Pub. L. 426 (1968).

For comment on Davis v. Firment, 269 F. Supp. 524 (E.D. La. 1967) as to constitutionality of public schools regulation of student appearance, see 19 Mercer L. Rev. 252 (1968). For comment discussing probable cause for search warrant in obscenity case, in light of Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U.S. 636, 88 S. Ct. 2103 , 20 L. Ed. 2 d 1313 (1968) (per curiam), see 18 J. of Pub. L. 205 (1969). For comment on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733 , 21 L. Ed. 2 d 731 (1969), discussing limits on regulation of students' symbolic speech, see 20 Mercer L. Rev. 505 (1969). For comment on Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S. Ct. 1243 , 22 L. Ed. 2 d 542 (1969) as to constitutional protection of private possession of obscene material, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 337 (1969). For comment on Sams v. Olah, 225 Ga. 497 , 169 S.E.2d 790 (1969) as to the constitutionality of the State Bar Act (Art. 2, Ch. 19, T. 15), see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 355 (1969). For comment concerning free speech aspects of F.C.C. fairness doctrine, in light of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., 381 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1967), see 19 J. of Pub. L. 129 (1970). For comment discussing Machesky v. Bizzell, 414 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1969), as to federal court injunctions against state court actions banning picketing and urging of boycotts by civil rights organization, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 610 (1970). For comment on Brooks v. Auburn Univ., 412 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1969), as to the constitutionality of barring a speaker from appearing at a state university, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 689 (1970). For comment on Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem. Presbyterian Church, 225 Ga. 259 , 167 S.E.2d 658 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1041, 90 S. Ct. 680 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 685 (1970), see 6 Ga. St. B.J. 438 (1970). For comment on Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 91 S. Ct. 1811 , 29 L. Ed. 2 d 296 (1971), holding the application of this amendment's privilege in libel actions to be dependent upon whether or not the publication is a matter of public interest, see 20 J. of Pub. L. 601 (1971). For comment on Anderson v. Laird, 316 F. Supp. 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1970), as to religious regulations at military academies, see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 400 (1971). For comment discussing In re Adoption of "E," 59 N.J. 36, 279 A.2d 785 (1971), as to the constitutionality of state court's refusal to approve adoption of child solely because of adopting parent's lack of religious beliefs, see 6 Ga. L. Rev. 221 (1971). For comment on Mary Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1970), modified and aff'd, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739 , 35 L. Ed. 2 d 201 (1973), as to unconstitutionality of statutory limitation on reasons for abortion, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 461 (1971). For comment on Maddox v. Fortson, 226 Ga. 71 , 172 S.E.2d 595 , cert. denied, 397 U.S. 149, 90 S. Ct. 999 , 25 L. Ed. 2 d 183 (1970), as to the constitutionality under this amendment and U.S. Const., Amend. 14, of prohibiting succession by an incumbent Governor until after the expiration of a four-year period, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 473 (1971). For comment discussing Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S. Ct. 2219 , 33 L. Ed. 2 d 131 (1972), as to this amendment's protection for distribution of handbills in privately owned shopping center in situation where reasonable alternative locations for such activity are present, see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 177 (1972). For comment on Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971), as to political activities by public employees, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 995 (1972). For comment on Jenkins v. State, 230 Ga. 726 , 199 S.E.2d 183 (1973), see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 225 (1973). For comment on Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 231 Ga. 312 , 201 S.E.2d 456 (1973), see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 225 (1973). For comment discussing compulsory school attendance duty of parents despite religious convictions protected under this amendment in light of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S. Ct. 1526 , 32 L. Ed. 2 d 15 (1972), see 24 Mercer L. Rev. 479 (1973). For comment discussing the constitutional standard for judging obscenity, in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607 , 37 L. Ed. 2 d 419 (1973), see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 327 (1973). For comment criticizing Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607 , 37 L. Ed. 2 d 419 (1973), calling for application of contemporary community standards to determine obscenity, see 23 Emory L.J. 551 (1974). For comment criticizing Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S. Ct. 2831 , 41 L. Ed. 2 d 730 (1974), holding state right-of-reply statute intrudes upon the freedom of the press, see 24 Emory L.J. 217 (1975). For comment criticizing Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S. Ct. 2222 , 44 L. Ed. 2 d 600 (1975), holding abortion advertisement protected by commercial speech doctrine, see 24 Emory L.J. 1165 (1975). For comment on Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S. Ct. 1029 , 43 L. Ed. 2 d 328 (1975), holding a state may not impose sanctions on accurate publication of name of rape victim obtained from official court records, see 24 Emory L.J. 1205 (1975). For comment on Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S. Ct. 1029 , 43 L. Ed. 2 d 328 (1975), see 9 Ga. L. Rev. 963 (1975). For comment on permissibility of court rules restricting attorney's right to comment publicly on litigation, in light of Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975), see 10 Ga. L. Rev. 289 (1975). For comment discussing defamatory falsehoods and this amendment's protection in light of Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 154 (1976), see 25 Emory L.J. 705 (1976). For comment on constitutionality of municipal ban on "for sale" and "sold" signs on residential property to prevent panic selling, in light of Linmark Assocs. v. Township of Willingboro, 535 F.2d 786 (3d Cir. 1976), see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 230 (1976). For comment on Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 955 S. Ct. 1813 , 44 L. Ed. 324 (1975), refusing to allow this amendment's exception to the privilege of legislative immunity, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 1195 (1976). For comment on Linmark Assocs. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85, 97 S. Ct. 1614 , 52 L. Ed. 2 d 155 (1977), as to free speech violation by local ordinance banning "for sale" and "sold" signs on residential property, see 26 Emory L.J. 913 (1977). For comment discussing constitutionality of regulating location of "Adult Theaters" on basis of film content in light of Young v. American Mini Theaters, 427 U.S. 50, 96 S. Ct. 2440 , 49 L. Ed. 2 d 310 (1976), see 28 Mercer L. Rev. 587 (1977). For comment on Coleman v. Bradford, 238 Ga. 505 , 233 S.E.2d 764 (1977), see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 335 (1977). For comment on Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 97 S. Ct. 2532 , 53 L. Ed. 2 d 629 (1977) upholding certain prison regulations relating to prisoners "union," see 27 Emory L.J. 137 (1978). For comment discussing doctrine of substituted judgment and constitutional underpinnings of a qualified right to refuse medical treatment asserted for an incompetent, in light of Superintendent of Belcherton State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977), see 27 Emory L.J. 425 (1978). For comment on Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S. Ct. 2849 , 53 L. Ed. 2 d 965 (1977), as to media's nonprotection under this amendment and U.S. Const., Amend. 14 from suit by performer whose "right of publicity" has been infringed, see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 861 (1978). For comment discussing impact of this amendment upon state statute prohibiting corporate spending to influence voters on referenda not materially affecting corporation's business in light of First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S. Ct. 1407 , 55 L. Ed. 2 d 707 (1978), see 28 Emory L.J. 183 (1979). For comment on Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 99 S. Ct. 693 , 58 L. Ed. 2 d 619 (1979), see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 1079 (1979). For comment, "Church Property Disputes: The Trend and the Alternative," see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 559 (1980). For comment, "The Extent of Accommodation to Employees' Religious Practices Under Title VII: Developments Since Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison," see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 595 (1980). For comment, "Private Search and Prior Restraint of Obscene Materials: The Interaction of Two Doctrines," see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 1029 (1980). For comment on Shakman v. Democratic Organization, 481 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill. 1979), regarding constitutionality of patronage hiring practices based on political affiliation, see 29 Emory L.J. 1217 (1980). For comment discussing the forcible medication of involuntarily committed mental patients with antipsychotic drugs in light of Rogers v. Okin, 634 F.2d 650 (1st Cir. 1980), see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 739 (1981). For comment discussing the legality of secondary boycotts, in light of NLRB v. Retail Store Employees Local 1001 (Safeco), 447 U.S. 607, 100 S. Ct. 2372 , 65 L. Ed. 2 d 377 (1980), and Soft Drink Workers Local 812 v. NLRB, No. 79-1888 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 1980), see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 763 (1981). For comment on the definition of religion under the federal Constitution, see 31 Emory L.J. 973 (1982). For comment on Widmar v. Vincent, 450 U.S. 909, 102 S. Ct. 269 , 67 L. Ed. 2 d 332 (1981), and discussion of the conflict between the religion clauses of the first amendment, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 1283 (1982). For comment on Terrebonne v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1981), and discussion of proportionality principle in sentencing, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 1365 (1982). For comment on Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), holding that a state university's policy of equal access to campus facilities for all organizations including those of a religious character does not violate the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment, see 32 Emory L.J. 319 (1983). For comment, "First Amendment Right of Access to Pretrial Proceedings in Criminal Cases," see 32 Emory L.J. 619 (1983). For comment, "Free Press, Privacy, and Privilege: Protection of Researcher-Subject Communications," see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 1009 (1983). For comment on ACLU v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983), see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 1603 (1983). For comment, "A Regulatory Theory of Copyright: Avoiding a First Amendment Conflict," see 35 Emory L.J. 163 (1986). For comment, "The Federal Highway Beautification Act After Metromedia," see 35 Emory L.J. 419 (1986). For comment, "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis," see 36 Emory L.J. 285 (1987). For comment, "Misrepresentation in Political Advertising: The Role of Legal Sanctions," see 36 Emory L.J. 853 (1987). For comment, "The Constitutional Implications of Mandatory Testing for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome - AIDS," see 37 Emory L.J. 217 (1988). For case comment, "Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools: The Constitutionality of Prayer in Public High School Commencement Exercises," see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 469 (1988). For comment, "Lee v. Dong-A Ilbo: Use of Official Report Privilege to Protect Defamatory Statements in Press Account Based on Foreign Government Report," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 275 (1988). For comment, "First Amendment Implications of State Takeover Legislation," see 38 Emory L.J. 827 (1989). For comment, "Defamation and Employment Relationships: the New Meanings of Private Speech, Publication, and Privilege," see 38 Emory L.J. 871 (1989). For comment, "An Establishment Clause Analysis of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 399 (1990). For comment, "Closing the Campus Gates to Free Expression: The Regulation of Offensive Speech at Colleges and Universities," see 39 Emory L.J. 1351 (1990). For comment, "The Politicization of Art: The National Endowment for the Arts, the First Amendment, and Senator Helms," see 40 Emory L.J. 241 (1991). For comment, "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith: The Supreme Court Deserts the Free Exercise Clause," see 25 Ga. L. Rev. 567 (1991). For comment, "Dances With Justice: Peyotism in the Courts," see 41 Emory L.J. 1121 (1992). For comment, "Can Anyone Own a Piece of the Clock?: The Troublesome Application of Copyright Law to Works of Historical Fiction, Interpretation, and Theory," see 42 Emory L.J. 253 (1993). For comment, "Phone, Fax, and Frustration: Electronic Commercial Speech and Nuisance Law," see 42 Emory L.J. 359 (1993). For comment, "Fishkin and Precedent: Liberal Political Theory and the Normative Uses of History," see 42 Emory L.J. 647 (1993). For comment, "Must God Regulate Religious Corporations? A Proposal for Reform of the Religious Corporation Provisions of the Revised Model Nonprofit Corporation Act," see 42 Emory L.J. 721 (1993). For comments, "First Covenant Church v. City of Seattle: The Washington Supreme Court Fortifies the Free Exercise Rights of Religious Landmarks Against Historic Preservation Restrictions," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 589 (1993). For comment, "Sex, Violence, and Profanity: Rap Music and the First Amendment," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 667 (1993). For comment, "The Reporter's Privilege in Georgia: 'Qualified' to Do the Job?," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 495 (1993). For comment, "Media Hybrids and the First Amendment: Constitutional Signposts Along the Information Superhighway," see 44 Emory L.J. 213 (1995). For comment on the use of federal statutes against abortion protestors, see 44 Emory L.J. 433 (1995). For comment on hunter harassment statutes, see 48 Emory L.J. 1023 (1999). For comment, "The Government's Right to Read: Maintaining State Access to Digital Data in the Age of Impenetrable Encryption," see 49 Emory L.J. 711 (2000). For comment, "Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop on First Amendment Concerns," see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 919 (2000). Dale v. Boy Scouts of America: Whether the application of New Jersey's Public Accommodations Law, forcing the Boy Scouts to include an avowed homosexual, violates the Scouts' First Amendment Freedom of Expressive Association, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 745 (2001). For comment, "No Need to Stand on Ceremony: The Corruptive Influence of Ceremonial Deism and the Need for a Separationist Reconfiguration of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Jurisprudence," see 54 Mercer L. Rev. 1669 (2003). For comment, "Thou Shalt Not Reorganize: Sacraments for Sale First Amendment Prohibitions and Other Complications of Chapter 11 Reorganization for Religious Institutions," see 22 Bank. Dev. J. 293 (2005). For comment, "'The Forgotten Child of Our Constitution': The Parental Free Exercise Right to Direct the Education and Religious Upbringing of Children," see 54 Emory L.J. 641 (2005). For comment, "Regulating Nonconnected 527s: Unnecessary, Unwise, and Inconsistent with the First Amendment," see 55 Emory L.J. 193 (2006). For comment, "It's Still Good to be the King: An Argument for Maintaining the Status Quo in Foreign Head of State Immunity," see 21 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 413 (2007). For comment, "Implementation of the UK Terrorism Act 2006 - The Relationship Between Counterterrorism Law, Free Speech, and the Muslim Community in the United Kingdom versus the United States," see 21 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 711 (2007). For comment, "Unexcused Absence: Why Public Schools in Religiously Plural Society Must Save a Seat for Religion in the Curriculum," see 56 Emory L.J. 1431 (2007). For comment, "The Case for the Selective Disincorporation of the Establishment Clause: Is Everson a Super-Precedent?," see 56 Emory L.J. 1701 (2007). For comment, "Drafting Glitches in the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998: Amend § 548(A)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code," see 24 Bank. Dev. J. 159 (2008). For comment, "Gag Me with a Rule of Ethics: BAPCPA's Gag Rule and the Debtor Attorney's Right to Free Speech," see 24 Bank. Dev. J. 227 (2008). For comment, "Comment: Is Worship a Unique Subject or a Way of Approaching Many Different Subjects?: Two Recent Decisions that Attempt to Answer This Question Set the Second and Ninth Circuits on a Course Toward State Entanglement With Religion," see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 1319 (2008). For comment, "'An Era of Human Zoning': Banning Sex Offenders from Communities Through Residence and Work Restrictions," see 57 Emory L.J. 1347 (2008). For comment, "'Just Say No' to Pro-Drug and Alcohol Student Speech: The Constitutionality of School Prohibitions of Student Speech Promoting Drug and Alcohol Use," see 57 Emory L.J. 1259 (2008). For comment, "Blessed be the Name of the Code: How to Protect Churches from Tithe Avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code's Fraudulent Transfer Law," see 25 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 599 (2009). For comment, "You've Got Libel: How the Can-Spam Act Delivers Defamation Liability to Spam-Fighters and Why the First Amendment Should Delete the Problem," see 58 Emory L.J. 1013 (2009). For comment, "Pay What You Like - No, Really: Why Copyright Law Should Make Digital Music Free for Noncommercial Uses," see 58 Emory L.J. 1495 (2009). For comment, "I Object: The RLUIPA as a Model for Protecting the Conscience Rights of Religious Objectors to Same-Sex Relationships," see 59 Emory L.J. 259 (2009). For comment, "Protecting Preachers from Prejudice: Methods for Improving Analysis of the Ministerial Exception to Title VII," see 59 Emory L.J. 1297 (2010). For comment, "When News Doesn't Want to be Free: Rethinking 'Hot News' to Help Counter Free Riding on Newspaper Content Online," see 60 Emory L.J. 537 (2010). For comment, "You Better Smile When You Say 'Cheese!': Whether the Photograph Requirement for Drivers' Licenses Violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 611 (2010). For comment, "For God and Money: The Place of the Megachurch Within the Bankruptcy Code," see 27 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 609 (2011). For comment, "Smoking Out Big Tobacco: Can the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Equip the FDA to Regulate Tobacco Without Infringing on the First Amendment?," see 60 Emory L.J. 705 (2011). For comment, "Room for Error Online: Revising Georgia's Retraction Statute to Accommodate the Rise of Internet Media," see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 923 (2012). For comment, "When the Eyes and Ears Become an Arm of the State: The Danger of Privatization through Government Funding of Insular Religious Groups," see 62 Emory L. J. 1411 (2013). For comment, "Tilted Scales of Justice? The Consequences of Third-Party Financing of American Litigation," see 63 Emory L. J. 489 (2013). For comment, "Pacifism in a Dog-Eat-Dog World: Potential Solutions to School Bullying," see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 753 (2013). For comment, "You Don't Have to, But It's in Your Best Interest: Requiring Express Ideological Statements as Conditions on Federal Funding," see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1129 (2013). For comment, "Saving the Deific Decree Exception to the Insanity Defense in Illinois: How a Broad Interpretation of 'Religious Command' May Cure Establishment Clause Concerns," see 46 J. Marshall L. Rev. 56 (2013). For article, "The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism," see 63 Emory L. J. 781 (2014). For comment, "By the Power Vested in Me? Licensing Religious Officials to Solemnize Marriage in the Age of Same-Sex Marriage," see 63 Emory L. J. 979 (2014). For comment, "In Combination: Using Hybrid Rights to Expand Religious Liberty," see 64 Emory L.J. 1175 (2015). For comment, "A Troubling Collision: Overbroad Coercion Statutes and Unchecked State Prosecutors," see 65 Emory L.J. 619 (2015). For comment, "Keeping the Arms in Touch: Taking Political Accountability Seriously in the Eleventh Amendment Arm of the State Doctrine," see 64 Emory L.J. 819 (2015). For comment, "Resurrecting the Public Voice: The Expansion of Standing in Patent Litigation," see 65 Emory L.J. 893 (2016). For comment, "Enforcing an Unenforceable Law: The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard," see 67 Emory L.J. 771 (2018). For comment, "Lyrics for Lockups: Using Rap Lyrics to Prosecute in America," see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 917 (2018). For comment, "'A Fresh Look': Title VII's New Promise for LGBT Discrimination Protection Post-Hively," see 68 Emory L.J. 1101 (2019). For comment, "Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer: Playing 'In the Joints' and on the Playground," see 68 Emory L.J. 1147 (2019). For comment, "State Constitutions as a Check on the New Governors: Using State Free Speech Clauses to Protect Social Media Users from Arbitrary Political Censorship by Social Media Platforms," see 69 Emory L.J. 111 (2019). For comment, "Paving a Path Between the Campus and the Chapel: A Revised Section 501(c)(3) Standard for Determining Tax Exemptions," see 69 Emory L.J. 321 (2019). For comment, "An Examination of Georgia's Film Tax Incentive: Is There No Business Like Show Business in Georgia?," see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 749 (2019). For comment, "Mandatory Fees No More!: Janus v. AFSCME Continues First Amendment Trend and Effectively Eliminates Union Power," see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 799 (2019).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Where plaintiff alleges statutory and constitutional predicates, federal court must assume jurisdiction. - Where a plaintiff alleges 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), in conjunction with 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the jurisdictional predicate, and alleges federal constitutional predicates, such as fourteenth amendment property rights, first amendment rights to free speech and association, and fifth amendment just compensation or "taking" clause, a federal court must assume jurisdiction to decide whether the allegations state a cause of action on which the court can grant relief, as well as to determine issues of fact arising in the controversy. Stone Mt. Game Ranch, Inc. v. Hunt, 570 F. Supp. 238 (N.D. Ga. 1983), aff'd, 746 F.2d 761 (11th Cir. 1984).

Conspiracy claims may be asserted against federal officials. - Conspiracy claims based on alleged violations of U.S. Const., amend. 1 may be asserted against federal officials as well as against those acting under color of state law. McDowell v. Cheney, 718 F. Supp. 1531 (M.D. Ga. 1989), aff'd, 9 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1993).

Statute of limitations. - Where plaintiff's original complaint, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations, was filed within two years after the injury, and plaintiff asserted a first amendment claim in an amendment, even though the first amendment expression arose out of the plaintiff's prior activities, the plaintiff's claim for violation of such right arose out of defendant's acts which were the basis of the § 1983 claim and related back to the date of the original complaint. Blue Ridge Mt. Fisheries, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 217 Ga. App. 89 , 456 S.E.2d 651 (1995).

Cited in RD-DR Corp. v. Smith, 183 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1950); McGill v. State, 209 Ga. 282 , 71 S.E.2d 548 (1952); Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 101 Ga. App. 105 , 113 S.E.2d 148 (1960); Wolfe v. City of Albany, 189 F. Supp. 217 (M.D. Ga. 1960); Suggs v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 219 F. Supp. 770 (M.D. Ga. 1960); Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399, 81 S. Ct. 567 , 5 L. Ed. 2 d 633 (1961); Braden v. United States, 365 U.S. 431, 81 S. Ct. 584 , 5 L. Ed. 2 d 653 (1961); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S. Ct. 1784 , 6 L. Ed. 2 d 1141 (1961); Williams v. State, 217 Ga. 312 , 122 S.E.2d 229 (1961); City of Atlanta v. Lopert Pictures Corp., 217 Ga. 432 , 122 S.E.2d 916 (1961); International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Georgia Ports Auth., 217 Ga. 712 , 124 S.E.2d 733 (1962); City of Atlanta v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 218 Ga. 714 , 130 S.E.2d 490 (1963); Anderson v. City of Albany, 321 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1963); Rogers v. Mayor of Atlanta, 219 Ga. 799 , 136 S.E.2d 342 (1964); Walker v. State, 220 Ga. 415 , 139 S.E.2d 278 (1964); Mack v. Connor, 220 Ga. 450 , 139 S.E.2d 286 (1964); Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant, 231 F. Supp. 396 (N.D. Ga. 1964); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 351 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1965); Barnum v. Chambliss, 247 F. Supp. 794 (M.D. Ga. 1965); Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S. Ct. 1783 , 1 6 L. Ed. 2 d 925 (1966); Carmichael v. Allen, 267 F. Supp. 985 (N.D. Ga. 1966); Wilson v. State, 223 Ga. 531 , 156 S.E.2d 446 (1967); Southwire Co. v. NLRB, 383 F.2d 235 (5th Cir. 1967); Epstein v. Maddox, 277 F. Supp. 613 (N.D. Ga. 1967); Troutman v. Southern Ry., 296 F. Supp. 963 (N.D. Ga. 1968); Sams v. Olah, 225 Ga. 497 , 169 S.E.2d 790 (1969); Graves v. Walton County Bd. of Educ., 410 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1969); Walker v. Blackwell, 411 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1969); Wesley v. City of Savannah, 294 F. Supp. 698 (S.D. Ga. 1969); Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 704 (S.D. Ga. 1969); Great Speckled Bird v. Stynchcombe, 298 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ga. 1969); Cato v. Georgia, 302 F. Supp. 1143 (N.D. Ga. 1969); Wilson v. Gooding, 431 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1970); Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F. Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970); United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc., 313 F. Supp. 870 (N.D. Ga. 1970); Georgia Socialist Workers Party v. Fortson, 315 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1970); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S. Ct. 1970 , 29 L. Ed. 2 d 554 (1971); 1024 Peachtree Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102 , 184 S.E.2d 144 (1971); Edwards v. Sammons, 437 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1971); United States ex rel. Huguley v. Martin, 325 F. Supp. 489 (N.D. Ga. 1971); United States v. Mitchell, 327 F. Supp. 476 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Cooley v. Endictor, 340 F. Supp. 15 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Dudley v. State, 228 Ga. 551 , 186 S.E.2d 875 (1972); Breaux v. State, 230 Ga. 506 , 197 S.E.2d 695 (1973); Fishman v. State, 128 Ga. App. 505 , 197 S.E.2d 467 (1973); Sonesta Int'l Hotels Corp. v. Colony Square Co., 482 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1973); Goodman v. Ault, 358 F. Supp. 743 (N.D. Ga. 1973); United States v. Best, 363 F. Supp. 11 (S.D. Ga. 1973); Hipple v. Warner, 368 F. Supp. 301 (N.D. Ga. 1973); Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 94 S. Ct. 2750 , 41 L. Ed. 2 d 642 (1974); Granese v. State, 232 Ga. 193 , 206 S.E.2d 26 (1974); Dyke v. State, 232 Ga. 817 , 209 S.E.2d 166 (1974); Jones v. Ault, 67 F.R.D. 124 (S.D. Ga. 1974); State v. Young, 234 Ga. 488 , 216 S.E.2d 586 (1975); Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975); Board of Educ. v. AFSCME, 401 F. Supp. 687 (N.D. Ga. 1975); Davis v. Griffin-Spalding County Bd. of Educ., 445 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1975); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 96 S. Ct. 1619 , 48 L. Ed. 2 d 71 (1976); Ballew v. State, 138 Ga. App. 530 , 227 S.E.2d 65 (1976); Hall v. State, 139 Ga. App. 488 , 229 S.E.2d 12 (1976); Thomas v. State, 237 Ga. 690 , 229 S.E.2d 458 (1976); Watts v. Six Flags Over Ga., Inc., 140 Ga. App. 106 , 230 S.E.2d 34 (1976); United States v. King, 532 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1976); Nelson v. Rosenthal, 539 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1976); Ashworth v. Fortson, 424 F. Supp. 1178 (N.D. Ga. 1976); Scott v. McDonald, 70 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ga. 1976); Pittman v. Cohn Communities, Inc., 240 Ga. 106 , 239 S.E.2d 526 (1977); Cargal v. State, 144 Ga. App. 238 , 241 S.E.2d 8 (1977); Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 556 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, 439 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Ga. 1977); Simpson v. State, 144 Ga. App. 657 , 242 S.E.2d 265 (1978); Underwood v. State, 144 Ga. App. 684 , 242 S.E.2d 339 (1978); Pierce v. State, 145 Ga. App. 680 , 244 S.E.2d 589 (1978); Farmer v. Holton, 146 Ga. App. 102 , 245 S.E.2d 457 (1978); Hess v. State, 146 Ga. App. 874 , 247 S.E.2d 546 (1978); Beall v. Department of Revenue, 148 Ga. App. 5 , 251 S.E.2d 4 (1978); Speight v. State, 148 Ga. App. 87 , 251 S.E.2d 36 (1978); Paperback Book Mart, Inc. v. State, 148 Ga. App. 377 , 251 S.E.2d 396 (1978); Love v. Sessions, 568 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1978); Rosanova v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 580 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1978); Willingham v. Carter, 447 F. Supp. 301 (S.D. Ga. 1978); United States v. Brown Transp. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 773 (N.D. Ga. 1978); High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 449 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ga. 1978); Evans v. Just Open Gov't, 242 Ga. 834 , 251 S.E.2d 546 (1979); Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1979); Doe v. Busbee, 471 F. Supp. 1326 (N.D. Ga. 1979); Playmate Cinema, Inc. v. State, 154 Ga. App. 871 , 269 S.E.2d 883 (1980); Hodges v. Tomberlin, 510 F. Supp. 1280 (S.D. Ga. 1980); Gateway Books, Inc. v. State, 247 Ga. 16 , 276 S.E.2d 1 (1981); Williams v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., 158 Ga. App. 26 , 279 S.E.2d 465 (1981); McCrary v. Poythress, 638 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1981); Thomasville Branch of NAACP v. Thomas County, 639 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir. 1981); Exxon Corp. v. Busbee, 644 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981); Gresham Park Community Org. v. Howell, 652 F.2d 1227 (5th Cir. 1981); Bailey v. Vining, 514 F. Supp. 452 (M.D. Ga. 1981); Dunten v. Kibler, 518 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ga. 1981); Windfaire, Inc. v. Busbee, 523 F. Supp. 868 (N.D. Ga. 1981); Dills v. City of Marietta, 674 F.2d 1377 (11th Cir. 1982); Ambassador College v. Geotzke, 675 F.2d 662 (5th Cir. 1982); Kyle v. Hanberry, 677 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1982); Lamar v. Banks, 684 F.2d 714 (11th Cir. 1982); Clemons v. Dougherty County, 684 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1982); Pierson v. News Group Publications, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 635 (S.D. Ga. 1982); Rhodes v. Gwinnett County, 557 F. Supp. 30 (N.D. Ga. 1982); Ray v. Edwards, 557 F. Supp. 664 (N.D. Ga. 1982); Hill Aircraft & Leasing Corp. v. Fulton County, 561 F. Supp. 667 (N.D. Ga. 1982); Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 702 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1983); Fiske v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 568 F. Supp. 590 (N.D. Ga. 1983); Kleiner v. First Nat'l Bank, 102 F.R.D. 754 (N.D. Ga. 1983); Caldwell v. Bateman, 252 Ga. 144 , 312 S.E.2d 320 (1984); Ray v. Edwards, 725 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1984); Stone Mt. Game Ranch, Inc. v. Hunt, 746 F.2d 761 (11th Cir. 1984); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 749 F.2d 663 (11th Cir. 1984); American Booksellers Ass'n v. Webb, 590 F. Supp. 677 (N.D. Ga. 1984); Watkins v. State, 254 Ga. 267 , 328 S.E.2d 537 (1985); Holley v. Seminole County Sch. Dist., 763 F.2d 399 (11th Cir. 1985); Kelly v. Macon-Bibb County Bd. of Elections, 608 F. Supp. 1036 (M.D. Ga. 1985); Jersawitz v. Hanberry, 610 F. Supp. 535 (N.D. Ga. 1985); Stevens v. Gay, 792 F.2d 1000 (11th Cir. 1986); Speedway Grading Corp. v. Gardner, 206 Ga. App. 439 , 425 S.E.2d 676 (1992); Top Shelf, Inc. v. Mayor & Alderman ex rel. City of Savannah, 832 F. Supp. 361 (S.D. Ga. 1993); Ford v. City of Oakwood, 905 F. Supp. 1063 (N.D. Ga. 1995); Anderson v. State, 231 Ga. App. 807 , 499 S.E.2d 717 (1998); Cox v. Barber, 275 Ga. 415 , 568 S.E.2d 478 (2002).

Scope and Purpose
1. In General

Right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, is fundamental to free society. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S. Ct. 1243 , 22 L. Ed. 2 d 542 (1969).

U.S. Const., amend. 1 gives freedom of mind the same security as freedom of conscience. Stoner v. Thompson, 377 F. Supp. 585 (M.D. Ga. 1974).

Clear and present danger required for restricting rights. - No public official, absent a showing of clear and present danger, can restrict rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1. Stoner v. Thompson, 377 F. Supp. 585 (M.D. Ga. 1974).

Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. - The grievances for redress of which the right of petition was ensured, and with it the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones; the rights of free speech and free press are not confined to any field of human interest. Stoner v. Thompson, 377 F. Supp. 585 (M.D. Ga. 1974).

Guarantees in U.S. Const., amend. 1 are protected by U.S. Const., amend. 14. Westberry v. Gilman Paper Co., 507 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1975).

First amendment rights take priority over national policy promoting racial integration. - Rights guaranteed under U.S. Const., amend. 1 are rights more compelling than any national policy promoting racial integration. Daugherty v. City of E. Point, 447 F. Supp. 290 (N.D. Ga. 1978).

Constitutional protection is presumed. - Constitutional protection under U.S. Const., amend. 1 is presumed, and exceptions to protection are few in number. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1978), aff'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980).

Under U.S. Const., amend. 1 there is no such thing as a false idea. Lindsey v. Board of Regents, 607 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1979).

Independent review of constitutional claims. - The first amendment values applicable to states are protected by powers vested in appellate courts to make an independent review of constitutional claims. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 447 U.S. 931, 100 S. Ct. 3031 , 65 L. Ed. 2 d 1131 (1980).

The first amendment values applicable to states through U.S. Const., amend. 14 are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 447 U.S. 931, 100 S. Ct. 3031 , 65 L. Ed. 2 d 1131 (1980).

First amendment, in conjunction with fourteenth, prohibits governments from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." These expressly guaranteed freedoms share a common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

When rights subject to regulation. - First amendment rights are not immunized from regulation when they are used as an integral part of conduct which violates a valid statute. United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 672 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1982), on rehearing, 702 F.2d 532 (5th Cir. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 48, 105 S. Ct. 1721 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 36 (1985).

Collection of records implicating rights. - Even where records implicating an individual's first amendment rights are involved, the prohibition against collection of such records is not absolute. Clarkson v. IRS, 678 F.2d 1368 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1031, 107 S. Ct. 1961 , 95 L. Ed. 2 d 533 (1987).

No first amendment right to accident reports. - Private investigator seeking information for commercial solicitation has no first amendment constitutional right of special access to motor vehicle accident reports. Spottsville v. Barnes, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2001).

Motorcycle helmet law. - There is no first amendment right to ride a motorcycle wearing a baseball cap, a bandanna, or bareheaded. ABATE of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia, 137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2001), aff'd, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001).

2. Balancing Interests of Citizen and State

Limitation upon individual liberty must have appropriate relation to the safety of the state. - Legislation which goes beyond this need violates the principle of the Constitution. Wolfe v. City of Albany, 104 Ga. App. 264 , 121 S.E.2d 331 (1961).

Rights protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1, though fundamental, are not absolute, and must be tempered to a degree by the concepts of order and a healthy respect for the rights of other citizens. Alonso v. State, 231 Ga. 444 , 202 S.E.2d 37 (1973), appeal dismissed, 417 U.S. 938, 94 S. Ct. 3062 , 41 L. Ed. 2 d 661 (1974).

Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses. Community Action Group v. City of Columbus, 473 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1973).

Two-tier test is utilized to determine whether an infringement of first amendment's rights is permissible. - First, there must be shown to exist a significant or compelling state interest served by the statute in question. Second, it must be determined whether there is a substantial relationship between the statute and the stated purpose, or compelling interest, of the state. Stoner v. Fortson, 379 F. Supp. 704 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Ordinance regulating sale and consumption of alcohol on adult premises. - The constitutionality of the ordinance was upheld and the County Board of Commissioners committed no error in employing a "reasonable belief" standard in scrutinizing the studies the county relied upon in enacting the ordinance that prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol at adult entertainment establishments. Cafe Erotica, Inc. v. Peach County, 272 Ga. 7 , 524 S.E.2d 728 (2000).

First amendment freedoms are not absolute. - They are properly restricted when sufficiently important governmental interest appears. Theriault v. Carlson, 495 F.2d 390 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003, 95 S. Ct. 323 , 42 L. Ed. 2 d 279 (1974), later appeal, 547 F.2d 1279 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 871, 98 S. Ct. 216 , 54 L. Ed. 2 d 150 (1977).

Conflict between legislative power and individual rights must be accommodated by legislation drawn more narrowly to avoid the conflict. A statute touching protected rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1 must be narrowly drawn to define and punish specific conduct as constituting a clear and present danger to a substantial interest of the state. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971).

States bear the burden of proving exceptions to constitutional protection. - States bear the burden of proving that a particular exception to the protection of U.S. Const., amend. 1 is applicable. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1978), aff'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980).

Ultimate balancing of interests of citizen and state with regard to first amendment protection remains in sphere of court. Williams v. Board of Regents, 629 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 926, 101 S. Ct. 3063 , 69 L. Ed. 2 d 428 (1981).

U.S. Const., amend. 1 is a restraint on government, not on private persons. Belluso v. Turner Communications Corp., 633 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1980).

Failure to balance rights. - Trial court erred by enjoining the parties and counsel from discussing the case with the media or placing information about the case on social media as the court failed to balance the danger with the parties' and counsels' First Amendment rights. Baskin v. Hale, 337 Ga. App. 420 , 787 S.E.2d 785 (2016), cert. denied, No. S16C1762, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 12 (Ga. 2017).

3. Overbroad Legislation

Standards of permissible statutory vagueness are strict in the area of free expression. Because U.S. Const., amend. 1's freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity. Wilson v. Gooding, 303 F. Supp. 952 (N.D. Ga.), appeal dismissed, 396 U.S. 112, 90 S. Ct. 397 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 306 (1969), aff'd, 431 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1970), 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 , 31 L. Ed. 2 d 408 (1972).

First amendment rights have assumed a protected place in the jurisprudence. Great care must be taken to assure that vague or overbroad laws do not infringe upon constitutional rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1. Wilson v. Gooding, 303 F. Supp. 952 (N.D. Ga.), appeal dismissed, 396 U.S. 112, 90 S. Ct. 397 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 306 (1969), aff'd, 431 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1970), 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 , 31 L. Ed. 2 d 408 (1972).

O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20 was not void for vagueness. - O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20 was not unconstitutionally vague under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I, as: (1) the statute gave a defendant ample notice that the prohibited conduct; (2) the statute also provided sufficient objective standards to those who were charged with enforcing it; and (3) a defendant's act was made criminal when a false statement was made, without regard to the result of that act, and the fact that application of the statute's standards sometimes required an assessment of the surrounding circumstances to determine if the statute was violated, did not render it unconstitutional. Banta v. State, 281 Ga. 615 , 642 S.E.2d 51 (2007).

Broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971).

Improper restrictive pretrial publicity order. - Ga. St. Bar R. 4-102(d):3.6 required a finding that extrajudicial statements to media members would have had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the trial; where, in restricting the extrajudicial statements to the media members by the non-lawyers, the parties, experts, witnesses, and investigators involved in a criminal trial, a trial court failed to find, based on evidence in the record, that the extrajudicial statements would have had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the trial, and to the extent the order contravened Ga. St. Bar R. 4-102(d):3.6, it was overbroad, and was reversed.

Purpose of striking down overbroad or vague statutes. - Overbreadth doctrine condemns those means to that legitimate end whereby first amendment rights may justifiably be infringed, which comprehend too broad an incursion upon the realm of first amendment activity. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971).

One of the purposes of striking down statutes which are "overbroad" is to assure the public that the dissemination of materials protected by the first amendment will not be suppressed. American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

The purpose of striking down statutes which are "vague" is to prevent the arbitrary enforcement of laws that fail to give officials or the public any notice of what is prohibited. American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Abstention by federal courts inappropriate. - Abstention by federal courts, remitting controversy to state courts, is particularly inappropriate in an overbreadth or vagueness case grounded upon U.S. Const., amend. 1. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971).

No showing of appropriateness of narrower statute required. - Attacks on overly broad statutes are allowed with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that the person's own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971).

Standing requirement relaxed for one attacking overly broad statute. - The Supreme Court has altered its traditional rules of standing to permit - in the area of U.S. Const., amend. 1 - attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that the person's own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity. Federal Election Comm'n v. Lance, 635 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1981), appeal dismissed and cert denied, 453 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 3151 , 69 L. Ed. 2 d 999 (1981) '.

Judicial remedy where no rehabilitative construction possible. - Where a law is substantially overbroad, in that it sweeps within its scope a wide range of both protected and nonprotected expressive activity, and where no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statute in a single proceeding, the courts may reject simple interest balancing and require the legislature to achieve its ends by less drastic means. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971); Smith v. Price, 446 F. Supp. 828 (M.D. Ga. 1977), rev'd on other grounds, 616 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1980).

Invalidation of statute to prevent "chilling" of protected conduct. - Rather than await case-by-case excision of a statute's overbreadth or vagueness through review of its application to particular conduct, which would be needlessly time-consuming and ineffective, courts, under the rubric of the overbreadth doctrine, may invalidate such a statute facially so as to end its deterrence of constitutionally protected activity, since otherwise the overbroad law would remain as a deterrent to others who, because of fear of statutory reprisals, might forego protected activity rather than test their privileges under U.S. Const., amend. 1 administratively or judicially. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971).

Governmental purposes should be narrowly achieved. - Even though a governmental purpose may be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can more narrowly be achieved. A governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. Melton v. City of Atlanta, 324 F. Supp. 315 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Smith v. Price, 446 F. Supp. 828 (M.D. Ga. 1977), rev'd on other grounds, 616 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1980).

Indecent or obscene speech statute overbroad. - Defendant's conviction for violating O.C.G.A. § 46-5-21(a)(1) was reversed as the statute was an overbroad infringement on defendant's first amendment and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. V rights to free speech; the statute does not contain the necessary language setting out the least restrictive means to further a compelling state interest as it applies to indecent or obscene speech, whether heard by children or adults, and whether unwelcomed by listeners or spoken with intent to please. McKenzie v. State, 279 Ga. 265 , 626 S.E.2d 77 (2005).

Vague statutes violate due process. - The test that has been enunciated is whether the terms of a statute are so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. DeKalb Real Estate Bd., Inc. v. Chairman & Bd. of Comm'rs of Rds. & Revenues, 372 F. Supp. 748 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Vague statutes requiring people of common intelligence to guess at meaning are unconstitutional. - A statute concerning rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1 must not forbid or require the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, because lack of a fair warning to actors or lack of adequate standards to guide enforcers also may lead to a "chill" on privileged activity. Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971).

Absent some qualification on "bias or prejudice", O.C.G.A. § 17-10-17 is left so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application; thus, § 17-10-17 is too vague to justify the imposition of enhanced criminal punishment for its violation. Furthermore, § 17-10-17 may not be upheld because it impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications; therefore, the sentence enhancement that defendants selected their victims because of racial bias and prejudice violated defendants' due process rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1, 5, 8, and 14 and the corresponding state constitutional provisions and the sentence enhancements were reversed. Botts v. State, 278 Ga. 538 , 604 S.E.2d 512 (2004).

Vagueness finding reversed where party lacked standing to challenge constitutionality of county zoning provision. - Because a lessor and a lessee did not preserve an "as applied" challenge to two county zoning code provisions, did not seek a special use permit, and lacked standing to make a constitutional challenge, the trial court erred in finding the provisions unconstitutionally vague, regardless of whether they had an otherwise viable facial challenge. Catoosa County v. R.N. Talley Props., LLC, 282 Ga. 373 , 651 S.E.2d 7 (2007).

United States Supreme Court has the duty to say where individual's freedom ends and state's power begins. - Choice on that border, always delicate, is perhaps more so where the usual presumption supporting legislation is balanced by the preferred place given in our scheme to the great, the indispensable democratic freedoms secured by U.S. Const., amend. 1. Stoner v. Thompson, 377 F. Supp. 585 (M.D. Ga. 1974).

Terroristic threats statute not overly broad. - Georgia's Terroristic Threats statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37(a) , did not violate the defendant's First Amendment's right to free speech because the statute's reckless scienter was not overly broad as recklessness clearly required an analysis of the accused's state of mind at the time of the crime, and communicating a threat of violence in a reckless manner did meet the definition of a true threat as recklessness required a knowing act such as conscious disregard of a substantial risk. Major v. State, 301 Ga. 147 , 800 S.E.2d 348 (2017).

4. Intervention and Injunctive Relief

Loss of first amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Injunctive relief where irreparable harm to first amendment rights probable. - The United States Supreme Court recognized that mere prosecution under a statute which regulates expression and which is unconstitutional on its face, or under a statute which is being applied in bad faith for purposes of discouraging the exercise of protected rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1, gives rise to the irreparable harm which is a prerequisite to injunctive relief; but injunctive relief is not appropriate to interfere with the enforcement of state criminal laws which do not affect these rights, for in such cases mere prosecution will not produce irreparable harm. Eberhart v. Massell, 311 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

Enjoining of state or military prosecution by federal court. - Only within narrow limits and where first amendment rights are involved will federal courts enjoin state or military prosecution. Torres v. Connor, 329 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

Ex parte temporary restraining orders without notice in area of first amendment freedoms. - There is a place in jurisprudence for ex parte issuance, without notice, of temporary restraining orders of short duration; but there is no place within the area of basic freedoms guaranteed by U.S. Const., amend. 1 for such orders where no showing is made that it is impossible to serve or to notify the opposing parties and to give them an opportunity to participate. Sumbry v. Land, 127 Ga. App. 786 , 195 S.E.2d 228 (1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1079, 94 S. Ct. 598 , 38 L. Ed. 2 d 486 (1973); Anderson v. Dean, 354 F. Supp. 639 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Order involving first amendment must be narrowly couched. - Order issued in area of rights of U.S. Const., amend. 1 must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order. Anderson v. Dean, 354 F. Supp. 639 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Circumstances necessary for federal court intervention in ongoing state proceeding. - Even in the area of first amendment rights, special circumstances such as bad faith and harassment must be present before a federal court may intervene in an ongoing state proceeding. Sanders v. McAuliffe, 364 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Elements indicating injunction not illegal prior restraint. - If prior to the issuance of the injunction an adequate determination is made that certain communication is unprotected by U.S. Const., amend. 1; that the order is based on a continuing course of repetitive conduct; and that the order is clear and sweeps no more broadly than necessary, then the injunction is not invalid as an illegal prior restraint. Retail Credit Co. v. Russell, 234 Ga. 765 , 218 S.E.2d 54 (1975).

Freedom of Religion
1. Scope of Free Exercise

Scope of establishment clause. - See American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Religious belief not justification for criminal act. - A party's religious belief cannot be accepted as justification for committing an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. Coleman v. City of Griffin, 55 Ga. App. 123 , 189 S.E. 427 (1936), appeal dismissed, 302 U.S. 636, 58 S. Ct. 23 , 82 L. Ed. 495 (1937).

Personal beliefs are not to be considered religious for purposes of U.S. Const., amend. 1. Sapp v. Renfroe, 511 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1975).

Restraints upon free exercise of religion unlawful. - Restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience are unlawful under the state and federal constitutions. Coleman v. City of Griffin, 55 Ga. App. 123 , 189 S.E. 427 (1936), appeal dismissed, 302 U.S. 636, 58 S. Ct. 23 , 82 L. Ed. 495 (1937).

Limits to free exercise of religion. - No external authority is to place itself between the finite being and the infinite when the former is seeking to render the homage that is due, and in a mode which commends itself to the finite being's conscience and judgment as being suitable for the finite being to render, and acceptable to its object; but religious liberty does not include the right to introduce and carry out every scheme or purpose which individuals see fit to claim as a part of their religious system. Coleman v. City of Griffin, 55 Ga. App. 123 , 189 S.E. 427 (1936), appeal dismissed, 302 U.S. 636, 58 S. Ct. 23 , 82 L. Ed. 495 (1937).

Only gravest abuses permit limitation on free exercise of religion. - Only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation of the free exercise of religion. Restrictions on the free exercise of religion are allowed only when it is necessary to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

First amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. The state must be steadfastly neutral in all matters of faith, and neither favor nor inhibit religion. Polakoff v. Henderson, 370 F. Supp. 690 (N.D. Ga. 1973), aff'd, 488 F.2d 977, (5th Cir. 1974).

Validity of ordinance prohibiting distribution of literature impacting Jehovah's Witness. - Ordinance prohibiting the distributing of literature within the city limits without prior written permission from the city manager did not deprive the defendant, a Jehovah's Witness, of the constitutional right of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, even though it prohibited the defendant from introducing and carrying out a scheme or purpose which the defendant saw fit to claim as a part of the defendant's religious system. Coleman v. City of Griffin, 55 Ga. App. 123 , 189 S.E. 427 (1936), appeal dismissed, 302 U.S. 636, 58 S. Ct. 23 , 82 L. Ed. 495 (1937).

Municipal ordinance restricting distribution of magazines valid for public safety. - A municipal ordinance providing that it shall be illegal "for any person, firm, or corporation to sell or offer for sale any goods, wares, merchandise, pamphlets, magazines, maps, or other article of value, on any Saturday between the hours of 12 noon and 9 P.M. on any of the following congested sidewalks of said city," designating certain sidewalks and providing a penalty therefore, is a valid and reasonable regulation for public safety and convenience, under the police power of the city; and where plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement against them of the ordinance, on the grounds that the magazines sold and offered for sale are devoted to religious subjects, and advocate the adoption of a particular form of religion, the distribution of which being a part of their religious belief, and urge that to prohibit the sale of the magazines would be in violation of their rights of religious freedom under the state and federal constitutions, it is not error to deny an injunction. Jones v. City of Moultrie, 196 Ga. 526 , 27 S.E.2d 39 (1943).

Ordinance forbidding sale of pamphlets for public safety invalid as applied to sale of religious literature. - Ordinance forbidding the sale of pamphlets between the hours of 10 A.M. and 9 P.M., on certain designated sidewalks, and providing a penalty therefore, is a valid reasonable regulation for public safety and convenience, but a proper interpretation excludes its application to the distribution of religious pamphlets or literature by selling or offering them for sale at the prohibited time and place, when such distribution does not interfere with the traffic, and the safety, comfort, or convenience of the public in the use of the street, as such an application would render the ordinance unconstitutional, as a violation of the defendant's constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. Burns v. City of Carrollton, 72 Ga. App. 628 , 34 S.E.2d 621 (1945).

Exercise of religious freedom with due regard for others' rights. - A person's right to exercise religious freedom, which may be manifested by acts, ceases where it overlaps and transgresses the rights of others. Everyone's rights must be exercised with due regard for the rights of others. Jones v. City of Moultrie, 196 Ga. 526 , 27 S.E.2d 39 (1943).

Balancing of religious freedom with ordered liberty. - Although a determination of what is a "religious" belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make their own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests. Theriault v. Carlson, 495 F.2d 390 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003, 95 S. Ct. 323 , 42 L. Ed. 2 d 279 (1974), later appeal, 547 F.2d 1279 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 871, 98 S. Ct. 216 , 54 L. Ed. 2 d 150 (1977).

Unlimited constitutional right to practice any religion. - Under the constitutional provisions, both state and federal, the right to adopt, profess, entertain, or advocate any religious views, or to fail or refuse to do so, is unlimited, and cannot be controlled by any law. There is no authority under the system of jurisprudence to alter, modify, or infringe upon this right. Jones v. City of Moultrie, 196 Ga. 526 , 27 S.E.2d 39 (1943).

Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom excludes objectionable acts. - While there is no power to control what a person may believe about religion or the type of religion a person may adopt or profess, yet there is a power under the law to limit the person's acts, even though to do such acts may be part of the person's religious belief. The constitutional guarantee of the exercise of religious freedom does not extend to acts which are inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. Jones v. City of Moultrie, 196 Ga. 526 , 27 S.E.2d 39 (1943).

Acts inimical to peace, good order, and morals not protected. - Constitutional guarantee of exercise of religious freedom does not extend to acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. A person's right to exercise religious freedom, which may be manifested by acts, ceases where it overlaps and transgresses the rights of others. Ferguson v. City of Moultrie, 71 Ga. App. 13 , 29 S.E.2d 786 (1944).

Balancing of freedoms of speech and religion. - The constitutional right of one to freedom of speech is counterbalanced by the right of the many to their constitutional freedom in the practice of their religion; neither occupies a preferred position in the constitution. Jones v. State, 219 Ga. 848 , 136 S.E.2d 358 , cert. denied, 379 U.S. 935, 85 S. Ct. 330 , 13 L. Ed. 2 d 345 (1964).

Zoning ordinance excluding church from residential area invalid. - Generally, any zoning ordinance that absolutely excludes churches from residential areas is invalid under constitutional guarantees. Churches are, however, subject to reasonable regulation both referring to property in the zone generally and to churches specifically, provided that the regulations are reasonable and contain some standards. Rogers v. Mayor of Atlanta, 110 Ga. App. 114 , 137 S.E.2d 668 (1964).

First amendment enjoins the employment of organs of government for essentially religious purposes. Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem. Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 89 S. Ct. 601 , 21 L. Ed. 2 d 658 (1969).

Civil courts forbidden from deciding ecclesiastical issues. - U.S. Const., amend. 1 commands civil courts to decide church property disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Hence, states, religious organizations, and individuals must structure relationships involving church property so as not to require the civil courts to resolve ecclesiastical questions. Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem. Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 89 S. Ct. 601 , 21 L. Ed. 2 d 658 (1969).

Although civil courts are the proper forum for resolving property disputes, in the case of disputes over church properties, they are forbidden from determining ecclesiastical questions in the process. Presbyterian Church v. Eastern Heights Presbyterian Church, 225 Ga. 259 , 167 S.E.2d 658 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1041, 90 S. Ct. 680 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 685 (1970).

U.S. Const., amend. 1 prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice; as a corollary to this commandment, the amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S. Ct. 3020 , 61 L. Ed. 2 d 775 (1979).

A court could not, consistent with the first amendment, adjudicate a dispute concerning a parliamentary ruling at the 1985 Southern Baptist Convention. The first amendment bars civil court resolution of any controversy concerning a matter of ecclesiastical government. Crowder v. Southern Baptist Convention, 828 F.2d 718 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1066, 108 S. Ct. 1028 , 98 L. Ed. 2 d 992 (1988).

Courts can consider distribution of assets. - While it is true that the courts may not inquire into a controversy relating to religious matters such as internal church procedures and expulsion from church membership, the trial court does have jurisdiction to resolve issues that do not require an impermissible intrusion or excessive entanglement into ecclesiastical matters without intruding upon religious or doctrinal matters; thus, trial courts may legitimately consider matters such as the distribution or disposition of tangible church property such as bank accounts, realty, and other temporal assets. Members of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church v. Jackson, 259 Ga. App. 647 , 578 S.E.2d 275 (2003).

Trial court had jurisdiction to issue an interlocutory injunction against a minister from coming onto church property in order to protect the property rights of the property owner. Anderson v. Dowd, 268 Ga. 146 , 485 S.E.2d 764 (1997).

Principle of separation of church and state guaranteed by U.S. Const., amend. 1 cannot extend beyond the grave any punishment imposed by sentence of courts for whatever term of years, and any attempt to do so will not be effective beyond the limit of the defendant's earthly span of existence. Hill v. State, 119 Ga. App. 612 , 168 S.E.2d 327 (1969).

Prohibition of employment of government organs for religious purposes. - Because of the hazards to free development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern, the first amendment enjoins the employment of organs of government for essentially religious purposes. Hickman v. Owens, 322 F. Supp. 1278 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

"Church" defined. - The term "church" is one of very comprehensive signification, and imports an organization for religious purposes, for the public worship of God. McClure v. Salvation Army, 323 F. Supp. 1100 (N.D. Ga. 1971), aff'd, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Salvation Army is a religion regardless of its lack of traditional houses of worship. McClure v. Salvation Army, 323 F. Supp. 1100 (N.D. Ga. 1971), aff'd, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Freedom of religious organizations from state interference. - U.S. Const., amend. 1 grants a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular control or manipulation, and, in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Compelling state interest required for regulation of religion. - Only in rare instances where a compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the state's constitutional power to regulate is shown can a court uphold state action which imposes even an incidental burden on the free exercise of religion. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Congressional inhibition of religious acts for public welfare. - Congress may inhibit or prevent acts, as opposed to beliefs, even where those acts are in accord with religious convictions or beliefs, where the public interest concerns outweigh first amendment protections. McClure v. Salvation Army, 323 F. Supp. 1100 (N.D. Ga. 1971), aff'd, 460 F.2d 553, (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Judiciary as well as legislature prohibited from interfering with religious freedom. - Constitutional principles prevent the judiciary, as well as the legislature, from interfering with the free exercise of religion. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Decisions of church tribunals conclusive in secular courts. - In the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, the decisions of the proper church tribunals on matters purely ecclesiastical, although affecting civil rights, are accepted in litigation before the secular courts as conclusive, because the parties in interest made them so by contract or otherwise. Whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Exclusion from church conclusive upon court. - The validity of the exclusion of individuals from membership in a church is conclusive upon the civil courts. Anderson v. Dowd, 268 Ga. 146 , 485 S.E.2d 764 (1997).

Blanket prohibition of religious solicitation in public areas overbroad. - The blanket prohibition on the use of the public streets, areas, and parks for solicitation or propagation of religious doctrine, regardless of any other circumstances, between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. is overbroad. Westfall v. Board of Comm'rs, 477 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Ga. 1979).

Court order requiring mother to undergo surgery to save her baby not violative of religious freedom. - Court order requiring a mother to undergo surgery against her religious convictions in order to preserve the life of her fully developed unborn child did not violate U.S. Const., amend. 1. Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hosp. Auth., 247 Ga. 86 , 274 S.E.2d 457 (1981).

Tithing under Bankruptcy Code. - A constitutional challenge to a determination that tithing is an unreasonable expense, subjecting a Chapter 7 debtor to dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), is not sustainable, as the free exercise clause does not require the Bankruptcy Code to yield to the debtor's desire to tithe. In re Lee, 162 Bankr. 31 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1993).

Private employment terminated due to religious beliefs. - U.S. Const., amend. 1 did not bar an action by an employee of a for-profit corporation who was terminated because of the employee's rejection of certain religious beliefs. Halverson v. Murzynski, 226 Ga. App. 276 , 487 S.E.2d 19 (1997).

Removal of board of directors of church was secular issue. - Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the former board of directors of a church for want of jurisdiction as it could resolve the dispute between the church members and the church's former board of directors as to the removal of the former board of directors, under the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-101 et seq., and as to the disposition of church property without considering ecclesiastical matters. Members of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church v. Jackson, 259 Ga. App. 647 , 578 S.E.2d 275 (2003).

2. State Actions Affecting Religion

Establishment clause of first amendment is applicable to state governments by virtue of the fourteenth amendment. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Limitations on applicability to states. - The establishment clause only speaks to acts of the United States Congress, and, as applied to the states under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, it still is limited only to governmental action respecting an establishment of religion. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Challenged state action must pass three-part test. - To pass muster under the establishment clause, the challenged state action must pass a three-part constitutional test: such action must have a secular as opposed to a religious purpose; the principal or primary effect of the state action must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and, the challenged state action must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The third portion of the test actually raises two questions: it must not appear that the state is involved in the questioned action to an extent sufficient to justify the application of first amendment analysis; and the results of the action must not foster excessive entanglement between the state and religion. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

"Excessive entanglement" defined. - Excessive entanglement between state and religion for purposes of the establishment clause is defined as an impermissible merging or intermeddling of the proper spheres of religion and government. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

It is effect of state's acts which brings constitutional scrutiny to bear, not the manner of their implementation; state acts may be legislative, administrative, or judicial; so long as they use state resources in a manner offensive to the United States Constitution, federal courts may act. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Religious accommodation provision of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j), violates establishment clause of U.S. Const., amend. 1 where the true purpose of such provision was the advancement of religion, the provision's principal and primary effect was to directly benefit religions, and the enforcement of the provision would result in an impermissible entanglement of government with religion. Isaac v. Butler's Shoe Corp., 511 F. Supp. 108 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

There is no conflict between establishment and free exercise clause where a court strikes down the religious accommodation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j), as unconstitutional because no free exercise problem arises, since no congressional action has taken place; the first amendment religious freedoms are not triggered by congressional inaction, but rather by the United States Congress' failure to adhere to the admonition that "Congress shall make no law". Isaac v. Butler's Shoe Corp., 511 F. Supp. 108 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Standing to challenge government-sponsored religious statements. - City residents and taxpayers had standing to challenge the display of the city seal used both on city stationery and to emboss official documents, since a non-economic injury which results from a party's being subjected to unwelcome religious statements can support a standing claim. Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687 (11th Cir. 1987).

Standing to sue under establishment clause. - Normally to have standing in order to bring a suit a party must allege that the challenged action has caused the party injury in fact, economic or otherwise, and the United States Supreme Court has limited citizen standing to bring suits challenging government action when plaintiffs have no interest in the suits other than that shared by all Americans; but, in the context of an establishment clause case, standing is more broadly permitted. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

For the ability to demonstrate Article III standing under the establishment clause, see American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

When establishment clause claim is raised, requirements for standing do not include proof that particular religious freedoms are infringed; rather, a spiritual stake in first amendment values will be sufficient to give standing to raise issues concerning the establishment clause. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Standing of organization or association. - In order to have standing to sue under the establishment clause, a plaintiff that is not a natural person, such as an organization or an association, must have individual persons or members with a constitutionally protected interest that is being infringed upon. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on rehearing, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Standing adequately shown. - Where the individual plaintiffs in the instant case gave testimony on their concerns with the separation of church and state, this was sufficient to demonstrate standing to sue because they have alleged injury in fact to an interest protected by the establishment clause which each has a personal right to enforce. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff 'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

City residents and taxpayers had standing to challenge city's use of word "Christianity" on its official seal, since they unquestionably had a direct stake in the outcome of the litigation. Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 628 F. Supp. 839 (M.D. Ga. 1986).

Roman Catholic priest's status as clergyman is sufficient to confer standing to sue under the establishment clause. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Showing required by those seeking immunity from laws on religious grounds. - Those who seek immunity from requirements of law on religious grounds must, at the very least, demonstrate adherence to ethical standards and a spiritual discipline. McClure v. Salvation Army, 323 F. Supp. 1100 (N.D. Ga. 1971), aff'd, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Religious groups not immune from property tax. - Religious groups do not enjoy a general immunity from the imposition of property taxes under U.S. Const., amend. 1. Leggett v. Macon Baptist Ass'n, 232 Ga. 27 , 205 S.E.2d 197 (1974).

Unorthodoxy will not serve to disqualify a religious group from tax exemption, as long as the group holds a sincere and meaningful belief in God occupying in the life of its possessors a place parallel to that occupied by God in traditional religions, and dedicates itself to the practice of that belief. Roberts v. Ravenwood Church of Wicca, 249 Ga. 348 , 292 S.E.2d 657 (1982).

Organizations affecting commerce may not escape the coverage of social legislation by showing that they were created for fraternal or religious purposes. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Cult's claims dismissed. - Cult's claims against several denominations alleging spiritual fraud and financial extortion were dismissed as beyond the appropriate judicial exercise of constitutional powers in accordance with the first amendment's separation between church and state. U-John v. Composite Bible-Based Religious Body, 839 F. Supp. 861 (N.D. Ga. 1993).

Jurisdiction over church property dispute. - The first amendment did not prohibit appellate jurisdiction over an action by church members against a pastor and church seeking dissolution of the church, appointment of a receiver, an injunction against the defendant's disposing of corporate assets, and proper disposition of the assets since the dispute was capable of resolution by reference to neutral principles of law, i.e., applicable provisions of the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-101 et seq., without infringing upon any first amendment values. Crocker v. Stevens, 210 Ga. App. 231 , 435 S.E.2d 690 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1053, 114 S. Ct. 1613 , 128 L. Ed. 2 d 340 (1994).

Trial court was not prohibited by the first amendment from exercising judicial authority over competing claims of church groups for ownership of a certificate of deposit. Kidist Mariam Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church, Inc. v. Kidist Mariam Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church, Inc., 219 Ga. App. 470 , 465 S.E.2d 491 (1995).

Georgia trial court did not violate the principle of separation of church and state by exercising jurisdiction in a civil case brought by a church and the church's board of deacons against the pastor and others to have the pastor removed and to have the pastor relinquish control of the church's property because the trial court did not involve itself in ecclesiastical matters when it ordered that persons eligible to vote on whether to retain or discharge the pastor were limited to those in membership with the church under the church's existing bylaws. Further, because the petition in the case involved a dispute over the control of church property, it presented a civil matter over which the trial court had jurisdiction. Smith v. Mount Salem Missionary Baptist Church, 289 Ga. App. 578 , 657 S.E.2d 642 (2008).

Trial court's order that a church call for an annual meeting of its membership in accordance with the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 14-3-701 constituted an unconstitutional judicial interference in the government of the church. First Born Church of Living God, Inc. v. Hill, 267 Ga. 633 , 481 S.E.2d 221 (1997).

Dispute between parishioners and their bishop. - The first amendment barred the court from exercising judicial authority in a dispute between parishioners and their bishop concerning the bishop's order that icons and an iconscreen in the church be replaced because they were not compatible with the religious organization's practices and principles. Leopold v. St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church, 235 Ga. App. 188 , 509 S.E.2d 121 (1998).

Presence of cross on state park land impermissibly enmeshes state and church by creating the appearance of official backing for Christianity. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on rehearing, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Use of religious grave markers in public cemetery permissible. - The erection and maintenance of religiously symbolic grave markers in a public graveyard in compliance with the religious sentiments of known descendants does not conflict with U.S. Const., amend. 1 or Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. VII. Birdine v. Moreland, 579 F. Supp. 412 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Erection of statue of Jesus in public cemetery impermissible. - The proposed erection and maintenance of a statue of Jesus as a part of a public cemetery memorial has an impermissible religious purpose and, therefore, violates the establishment clause. Birdine v. Moreland, 579 F. Supp. 412 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

County courthouse display of the Ten Commandments. - Framed panel of the Ten Commandments and the Great Commandment displayed in a county courthouse violated the establishment clause, warranting court order requiring removal of panel unless remounted within a larger display of non-religious, historical items, to bring it within constitutional parameters. Harvey v. Cobb County, 811 F. Supp. 669 (N.D. Ga. 1993), aff'd, 15 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129, 114 S. Ct. 2138 , 128 L. Ed. 2 d 867 (1994).

Menorah allowed in public plaza. - Because the state would not contravene the dictates of the establishment clause by neutrally and nonpreferentially allowing a religious organization to display its menorah in a public plaza, the state's exclusion of the menorah was neither necessary, nor narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Chabad-Lubavitch v. Miller, 5 F.3d 1383 (11th Cir. 1993).

Licensing of church-operated children's home. - A requirement that the Department of Human Resources license a church-operated children's home as a child caring institution pursuant to the Children and Youth Act and department regulations governing child caring institutions does not violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment, nor would it violate the establishment clause of the first amendment, since such a requirement in no way aids, furthers, or confers a special benefit on any religious group. Darrell Dorminey Children's Home v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 260 Ga. 25 , 389 S.E.2d 211 (1990).

Appeal by state to single religious group in effort to promote tourism is in any case constitutionally questionable. American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 678 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1982), aff'd on reh'g, 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983).

Jury's use of Christian Bible during sentencing phase after capital conviction. - No first amendment issue was presented when the court permitted the Christian Bible to go into the jury room at the request of the jurors apparently for consultation, although the possible use of the Bible by jurors cannot be reconciled with the eighth amendment's requirement that any decision to impose death must be the result of discretion which is carefully and narrowly channeled and circumscribed by the secular law of the jurisdiction. Jones v. Kemp, 706 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1989).

Violation of zoning ordinance by minister. - Zoning ordinance that allowed only single family residences in agricultural- residential areas did not violate a minister's right to free exercise of the minister's religion, where the minister rented a portion of the minister's home to a bankrupt family, and the minister was not acting on behalf of the minister's church by accepting rent. Lacey v. State, 270 Ga. 37 , 507 S.E.2d 441 (1998).

Right to control church property. - If the church government is hierarchical, then "neutral principles of law" are used to determine whether the local church or parent church has the right to control local property; "neutral principles" are state statutes, corporate charters, relevant deeds, and the organizational constitutions of the denomination. St. Mary of Egypt Orthodox Church, Inc. v. Townsend, 243 Ga. App. 188 , 532 S.E.2d 731 (2000).

Hierarchical religious organizations. - A hierarchical church is associated with other churches that share similar faith and doctrine and have a common ecclesiastical head and, as a matter of constitutional law, a hierarchical religious organization must be permitted to establish the rules and regulations by which it is governed. St. Mary of Egypt Orthodox Church, Inc. v. Townsend, 243 Ga. App. 188 , 532 S.E.2d 731 (2000).

3. Federal Actions Affecting Religion

IRS summons of religious organization members' records permissible. - An IRS summons to a bank requesting records relevant to the tax liability of an individual member of a religious organization did not violate U.S. Const., amend. 1, as the summons imposed no restriction on the religious organization's freedom to espouse doctrine or solicit support. United States v. Saunders, 621 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Ga. 1985).

4. Clergy

Legislation regulating church administration violative of first amendment. - Legislation that regulates church administration, the operation of the churches, or the appointment of clergy, prohibits the free exercise of religion and violates U.S. Const., amend. 1. Regulation of the employment relationship between a minister and church by the state would result in an encroachment into an area of religious freedom which government is forbidden to enter and would violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S. Ct. 132 , 34 L. Ed. 2 d 153 (1972).

Matters involving clergy. - Civil court could not take jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical issue involving a clergyman's termination from the clergyman's capacity as minister of two mission churches, because U.S. Const., amend. 1 prohibits such action by the civil judicial system. McDonnell v. Episcopal Diocese, 191 Ga. App. 174 , 381 S.E.2d 126 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 935, 110 S. Ct. 328 , 107 L. Ed. 2 d 318 (1989).

Superior court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether pastor was wrongfully terminated in violation of church's constitution and bylaws. Bledsoe v. Morningside Baptist Church, 232 Ga. App. 122 , 501 S.E.2d 292 (1998).

Courts of Georgia are prohibited from determining issues of expulsion of members, pastors, and the internal procedures of a religious entity. United Baptist Church, Inc. v. Holmes, 232 Ga. App. 253 , 500 S.E.2d 653 (1998).

Subject matter jurisdiction was lacking over plaintiff pastor's action alleging that the plaintiff's bishop transferred the plaintiff from one church to another without complying with church rules. Jay v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 242 Ga. App. 833 , 531 S.E.2d 369 (2000).

5. Prisoners

Denial of a prisoner's petition for a name change for religious purposes did not violate the freedom of religion clause. In re Redding, 218 Ga. App. 376 , 461 S.E.2d 558 (1995).

Validity of prison regulations affecting religious and racial beliefs. - Arbitrary discrimination based upon the religious or racial beliefs of those concerned is constitutionally impermissible. But, rules and regulations are constitutionally valid when they are reasonable and justifiable in the administration of a large prison population, in light of the necessity to maintain prison discipline, and control any dangers and hazards presented. Bethea v. Daggett, 329 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff'd, 444 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1971).

Prisoner's right to exercise religion. - Under U.S. Const., amend. 1, a prisoner has the right to exercise the prisoner's religion, and refusal to permit a prisoner access to religious publications states a cause of action. Neal v. Georgia, 469 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1972).

Failure of prison authorities to provide Islamic meals minor infringement of religious freedom. - Failure of prison authorities to provide means strictly in compliance with Islamic dietary laws and to specially prepare foods under the strict instructions of their religious practice, where the prisoners were otherwise allowed substantial time to practice their religion, was a very minor inconvenience which impinged on the prisoner's full exercise of their religious preferences only in a very limited way. Elam v. Henderson, 472 F.2d 582 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 868, 94 S. Ct. 177 , 38 L. Ed. 2 d 117 (1973).

Prison grooming regulation. - Prison regulation, to the extent that it prohibited Sunni Muslim inmate at a maximum security prison from growing a beard in conformity with the inmate's religious beliefs, was not violative of the first amendment. Furqan v. Georgia State Bd. of Offender Rehabilitation, 554 F. Supp. 873 (N.D. Ga. 1982).

Prison visits by ministers. - Inmate's complaint that prison officials did not make reasonable arrangements for the visitation of ministers from the Nation of Islam Muslim sect stated a prima facie case for relief. Saleem v. Evans, 866 F.2d 1313 (11th Cir. 1989).

6. Schools and Education

Religious invocations at high school games. - Practice of having religious invocations delivered prior to public high school football games violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. Jager v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 862 F.2d 824 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1090, 109 S. Ct. 2431 , 104 L. Ed. 2 d 988 (1989).

Announcement of "secular" activities sponsored by religious organizations. - A school district's policy and practice of announcing "secular" activities sponsored by religious organizations through the use of various schools' public address systems and bulletin boards creates excessive entanglement problems. Nartowicz v. Clayton County Sch. Dist., 736 F.2d 646 (11th Cir. 1984).

Use of school property by religious youth group. - A junior high school's practice of permitting a religious youth group to meet on school property under faculty supervision had the primary effect of advancing or promoting religion when the school district also supported religious assemblies, religious signs, and announcements of church-sponsored activities via bulletin boards and the public address system. Nartowicz v. Clayton County Sch. Dist., 736 F.2d 646 (11th Cir. 1984).

Georgia's Moment of Quiet Reflection in Schools Act is constitutional in its entirety, both facially and as applied and did not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment to the United States Constitution when the school principal announced over the intercom the quiet moment. Bown v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 895 F. Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff'd, 112 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1997).

The Georgia Moment of Quiet Reflection in Schools Act does not violate the establishment clause because it satisfies all three prongs of the Lemon test. The Act does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and does not create an excessive government entanglement with religion. Bown v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 112 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1997).

Not subject to strict scrutiny standard of review. - Strict scrutiny review should not have been applied to plaintiff school board members' challenges under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to O.C.G.A. § 20-2-51(c)(2) because the statute's nepotism provision prohibited plaintiffs only from running for the school board in districts where certain family members were employed, but the statute did not otherwise impair plaintiffs' right to run for office or to vote; plaintiffs' injury was not so severe as to require strict scrutiny. Plaintiffs' claims that the statute was both too narrow and overbroad also failed; that the statute did not prevent nepotism in all its possible forms did not heighten the severity of the restriction to necessitate strict scrutiny. Grizzle v. Kemp, 634 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2011).

A biology textbook which noted creationism was an explanation for the beginning of life in many cultures that could not be scientifically proved and that science could not resolve disputes about the origin of life did not sponsor religious actions or beliefs, so it did not violate the prohibition of a government establishment of religion, and it was unnecessary to analyze whether it: (1) had a secular purpose; (2) had a primary effect that advanced or inhibited religion; and (3) fostered excessive state entanglement with religion. Moeller v. Schrenko, 251 Ga. App. 151 , 554 S.E.2d 198 (2001).

Biology textbook which contained a neutral discussion of creationism did not impinge upon the free exercise of a student's religious beliefs. Moeller v. Schrenko, 251 Ga. App. 151 , 554 S.E.2d 198 (2001).

Freedom of Speech and Press
1. In General

Rights protected by first amendment. - Freedom of speech and of the press - which are protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1 from abridgment by Congress - are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the U.S. Const., amend. 14, from impairment by the states. Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55 , 166 S.E. 827 (1932), later appeal, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933).

Statements can be without first amendment protection. Masson v. Slaton, 320 F. Supp. 669 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

Freedoms of expression must be ringed about with adequate bulwarks. Anderson v. Dean, 354 F. Supp. 639 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Purpose of amendment. - Purpose of U.S. Const., amend. 1 includes the need to protect parties in the free publication of matters of public concern, to secure their right to a free discussion of public events and public measures, and to enable every citizen at any time to bring the government and any person in authority to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism upon their conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred upon them. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S. Ct. 1364 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 569 (1962).

Broad prohibitions prohibited. - Content-neutral restrictions on the exercise of first amendment rights in traditional public forums such as streets, are valid only when narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests and when the restrictions leave open ample alternative channels of communication. A broad prohibition of all picketing in all streets, alleys, roads, highways, and driveways predominantly dedicated to the use of vehicular traffic did not serve the city's interests in the narrow fashion demanded by the first amendment. United Food & Com. Workers Union Local 422 v. City of Valdosta, 861 F. Supp. 1570 (M.D. Ga. 1994).

Content neutral. - Principal inquiry in determining whether a legislative act is content-neutral is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys; the government's purpose is the controlling consideration. Thus, regulations that serve purposes unrelated to the content of expression are deemed neutral, even if they have an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others; an ordinance designed to combat the undesirable secondary effects of sexually explicit businesses is content-neutral. I.D.K., Inc. v. Ferdinand, 277 Ga. 548 , 592 S.E.2d 673 (2004).

Discussion and communication involving matters of public concern protected. - U.S. Const., amend. 1 grants constitutional protection to all discussion and communication involving matters of public or general concern, without regard to whether the persons involved are famous or anonymous. Credit Bureau of Dalton, Inc. v. CBS News, 332 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

First amendment embraces publication, circulation and distribution of books and films. Purple Onion, Inc. v. Jackson, 511 F. Supp. 1207 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Gathering of news protected. - Freedom to publish news, without some protected ability to gather it, would render freedom of the press an unduly gossamer right. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

It is apparent that the first amendment right to publish must logically include to some degree a right to gather news fit for publication. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Music as speech which incites imminent lawless activity. - Creators and disseminators of a song entitled "Suicide Solution" were protected by the first amendment after the parents of a teenage boy who committed suicide after repeatedly listening to the song were unable to demonstrate any manner in which the music could be categorized as speech which incited imminent lawless activity. Waller v. Osbourne, 763 F. Supp. 1144 (M.D. Ga. 1991), aff'd, 958 F.2d 1084 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 916, 113 S. Ct. 325 , 121 L. Ed. 2 d 245 (1992).

Access to information protected. - U.S. Const., amend. 1 protects the public and press from abridgment of their rights of access to information about the operation of their government. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Access to information not available to public generally. - First amendment does not guarantee press constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Arbitrary interference with access to important information is abridgment of the freedoms of speech and press protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Highly protected status of even provocative speech. - A function of free speech under the system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech is protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. Wilson v. Gooding, 303 F. Supp. 952 (N.D. Ga.), appeal dismissed, 396 U.S. 112, 90 S. Ct. 397 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 306 (1969), aff'd, 431 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1970), 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 , 31 L. Ed. 2 d 408 (1972).

Narrow construction of statutes prohibiting speech. - To withstand constitutional attack, a statute or ordinance which prohibits speech must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression. State v. Davis, 246 Ga. 761 , 272 S.E.2d 721 (1980).

One person's right to free speech must be balanced with another's right. - Freedom of speech or press does not mean that one can talk or distribute literature where, when, and how one chooses, but the right to do so must be adjusted to the rights of others. Durham v. State, 219 Ga. 830 , 136 S.E.2d 322 (1964).

Dissemination of individual's opinions on matters of public interest is an "unalienable right" that "governments are instituted among men to secure." The founders were not always convinced that unlimited discussion of public issues would be "for the benefit of all of us" but they firmly adhered to the proposition that the "true liberty of the press" permitted "every man to publish his opinion." Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975 , 18 L. Ed. 2 d 1094 (1967).

Freedom of expression by public officials. - Role that elected officials play in society makes it imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S. Ct. 1364 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 569 (1962).

U.S. Const., amend. 1 in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. The central commitment of the first amendment is that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S. Ct. 339 , 17 L. Ed. 2 d 235 (1966).

Proper construction of "speech" and "press". - When taken as it must be as a harmonious part of the entire Constitution, and in light of history, a construction is demanded that the first amendment, by the words "speech" and "press", means only speech and press outside of infringement of the rights of others. K. Gordon Murray Prods., Inc. v. Floyd, 217 Ga. 784 , 125 S.E.2d 207 (1962).

Guarantee of freedom from abridgment of rights by federal or state government. - Constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S. Ct. 1029 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 196 (1976).

Rights protected from invasion by state action. - Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1 from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by U.S. Const., amend. 14 from invasion by state action. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S. Ct. 666 , 82 L. Ed. 949 (1938); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 78 S. Ct. 277 , 2 L. Ed. 2 d 302 (1958); Walter v. State, 131 Ga. App. 667 , 206 S.E.2d 662 , appeal dismissed, 233 Ga. 10 , 209 S.E.2d 605 (1974).

State burden on fundamental right requires strong justification. - When a state burdens the exercise of a fundamental right, its attempt to justify that burden as a rational means for the accomplishment of some significant state policy requires more than a bare assertion that the burden is connected to such a policy. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1978), aff 'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980).

Interference with rights by states and municipalities. - States and municipalities may no more interfere with the freedom of speech than may the national government. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Ultimate responsibility to define limits of state power regarding freedom of speech and expression rests with the Supreme Court. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S. Ct. 1364 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 569 (1962).

Penalizing speech because of its nonspeech aspect. - Under U.S. Const., amend. 1 even activity which is itself communicative may nevertheless be penalized because of its nonspeech aspect. United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 471 (N.D. Ga. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 48, 105 S. Ct. 1721 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 36 (1984).

Speech advocating use of force or violation of law. - Constitutional guarantees of free speech and press do not permit state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. However, the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action. Wilson v. Gooding, 303 F. Supp. 952 (N.D. Ga.), appeal dismissed, 396 U.S. 112, 90 S. Ct. 397 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 306 (1969), aff'd, 431 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1970), 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 , 31 L. Ed. 2 d 408 (1972).

Speech causing clear and present danger. - In order for state to proscribe printed material, it must foment imminent lawless conduct, and the threat from such incitement must be seen as posing a clear and present danger. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1978), aff'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980).

Talk of clear and present danger arising out of criticism is idle unless the criticism makes it impossible in a very real sense for a court to carry on the administration of justice. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S. Ct. 1364 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 569 (1962).

Curbing speech provoking others to action. - Since speech is normally intended to change the opinions or reinforce the opinions of others, problems arise as to the extent to which mere speech may be curbed when it provokes others into action. A speaker sometimes passes the bounds of arguments and persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot. Wilson v. Gooding, 303 F. Supp. 952 (N.D. Ga.), appeal dismissed, 396 U.S. 112, 90 S. Ct. 397 , 24 L. Ed. 2 d 306 (1969), aff'd, 431 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1970), 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 , 31 L. Ed. 2 d 408 (1972).

Aberrant, unpopular, and revolutionary speech protected. - The expanse of U.S. Const., amend. 1 by necessity includes speech which is aberrant, unpopular, and even revolutionary. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1978), aff 'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980).

Speech drawing adverse reaction from majority protected. - Speech cannot be stifled by the state merely because it might draw an adverse reaction from a majority of the people. Reineke v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 484 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Speech advocating illegal action in future. - Material merely advocating illegal action at some future time may not be criminally proscribed by the state. Printed matter either assailing the state's controlled substances laws or extolling the attractions of certain unlawful substances and glorifying the drug culture may not be generally restricted. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1978), aff 'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980).

Freedom of speech does not always prevail over property rights. Property rights do not always prevail over the right of free speech. Griffin v. Trustees of Atlanta Univ., 225 Ga. 859 , 171 S.E.2d 618 (1969).

Ordinary forms of taxation not violative of freedom of press. - Businesses which exercise freedom of press are not thereby immune from ordinary forms of taxation. Airport Bookstore, Inc. v. Jackson, 242 Ga. 214 , 248 S.E.2d 623 (1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 952, 99 S. Ct. 2182 , 60 L. Ed. 2 d 1057 (1979).

Private property becomes subject to protest or propaganda activity when both of the following are satisfied: (a) the protest is related to the use to which the property is put; and (b) there exists no reasonably effective alternative means of communication to reach the intended audience. Hudgens v. NLRB, 501 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S. Ct. 1029 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 196 (1976).

Public forum for expression must be available to all members of the public for the exercise of rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Protection accorded ideas disapproved by some in area where advanced. - Under the constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech, an organization cannot be penalized for disseminating ideas which are not opposed to our system of government, even though such ideas may not meet with the approval of all of the people in the area in which they are advanced. Williamson v. Southern Regional Council, Inc., 223 Ga. 179 , 154 S.E.2d 21 (1967).

Purpose of liberty of press. - Liberty of the press was intended to prevent all previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments in early times to stifle the efforts of patriots towards enlightening their fellow subjects upon their rights and the duties of rulers. The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but a person who used it was to be responsible in case of its abuse. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd, 482 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1044, 95 S. Ct. 2660 , 45 L. Ed. 2 d 696 (1975).

Liberty of press must be responsibly exercised. - Guarantees of freedom of speech and press are not designed to prevent censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975 , 18 L. Ed. 2 d 1094 (1967).

The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every free person has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments that person pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if the person publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, the person must take the consequence of the person's own temerity. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd, 482 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1044, 95 S. Ct. 2660 , 45 L. Ed. 2 d 696 (1975).

Pamphlets and leaflets protected. - The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S. Ct. 666 , 82 L. Ed. 949 (1938).

Access by press to news. - Inherent in the right of freedom of the press is a limited right of reasonable access to certain kinds of news. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

The right of access of the news media representatives is no greater and no less than any other member of the general public. R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576 , 292 S.E.2d 815 (1982).

News station with standing to object to gag order. - Two television stations had standing to challenge the modified gag order, notwithstanding that the order did not restrain the stations directly, because the First Amendment offered some protection to news gathering by journalists; federal courts had held in a number of cases that a news organization might have standing to challenge a restraint upon the speech of another when that restraint impaired the organization's own ability to effectively engage in news gathering; and neither the accused nor the state disputed that some persons to whom the modified gag order applied otherwise would be willing to speak with reporters. WXIA-TV v. State of Ga., 303 Ga. 428 , 811 S.E.2d 378 (2018).

Access to information concerning government activities. - Rights guaranteed and protected by the first amendment include the right of access to news or information concerning the operations and activities of government. This right is held by both the general public and the press, with the press acting as a representative or agent of the public as well as on its own behalf. Without such a right, the goals and purposes of the first amendment would be meaningless. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Qualified right of access to information concerning government activities. - The right of access to news and information concerning activities of government is qualified, rather than absolute, and is subject to limiting considerations such as confidentiality, security, orderly process, spatial limitation, and doubtless many others. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

The first amendment's protection of a citizen's right to obtain information concerning "the way the country is being run" does not extend to every conceivable avenue a citizen may wish to employ in pursuing this right. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

There does exist a limited right of the public and the press, under the first amendment, to access to information concerning governmental activities. CNN, Inc. v. ABC, 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Material printed by law publisher rating attorneys is protected by the first amendment. Bergen v. Martindale-Hubbell, Inc., 248 Ga. 599 , 285 S.E.2d 6 (1981).

Live theatre protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1. - Live theatrical productions, no less than novels or motion pictures, are media and organs for the expression of public opinion and the propagation of ideas and critical comments and are entitled to first amendment protection. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Theatrical productions are "speech" protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1. A musical play is a unitary form of constitutionally protected expression, and may not be separated into speech and nonspeech components. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Motion pictures protected. - Motion pictures are within the basic protection of U.S. Const., amends. 1 and 14, and are afforded the full protection constitutionally guaranteed to all speech or press. K. Gordon Murray Prods., Inc. v. Floyd, 217 Ga. 784 , 125 S.E.2d 207 (1962).

Expression by means of motion pictures included within free speech and press guaranty of U.S. Const., amends. 1 and 14. Carter v. Gautier, 305 F. Supp. 1098 (M.D. Ga. 1969).

Outdoor Advertising Control Act of 1971, O.C.G.A. § 32-6-70 , does not violate right of freedom of expression by restricting outdoor advertising in areas adjacent to the rights-of-way of interstate and primary systems of highways in this state. Department of Transp. v. Shiflett, 251 Ga. 873 , 310 S.E.2d 509 (1984).

O.C.G.A. §§ 50-16-14 and 50-16-16 , allowing removal of persons who cause disruptions in state buildings, do not violate the first amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, the right to assemble peaceably, and petition the government for redress of their grievances. State v. Storey, 181 Ga. App. 161 , 351 S.E.2d 502 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1017, 107 S. Ct. 1895 , 95 L. Ed. 2 d 501 (1987).

Ordinance unconstitutional absent reasonable relationship between restraints imposed and public welfare. - Where there is no reasonable relationship between the restraints imposed on freedom of speech and the general welfare of the community, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Wolfe v. City of Albany, 104 Ga. App. 264 , 121 S.E.2d 331 (1961).

Burning of American flag. - Former Code 1933, § 26-2803, which prohibited misuse of the national flag, was unconstitutional as applied to an individual who burned a flag during a public demonstration protesting the United States' involvement in Iranian affairs since there was no likelihood of imminent public unrest. Monroe v. State Court, 739 F.2d 568 (11th Cir. 1984).

Display of the Georgia state flag did not violate African-American citizen's constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom of expression. Coleman v. Miller, 117 F.3d 527 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1011, 118 S. Ct. 1199 , 140 L. Ed. 2 d 328 (1998).

Withholding of promotion by state as sanction for free speech. - For state to withhold expected promotion or pay raise as a sanction for the exercise of the right to free speech is a restriction of that right in violation of U.S. Const., amends. 1 and 14. Goolsby v. Regents of Univ. Sys., 141 Ga. App. 605 , 234 S.E.2d 165 (1977).

Claim on behalf of "talking cat" not entertained. - The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will not hear a claim that a "talking cat's" right to free speech has been infringed by a business license ordinance since, although the talking cat arguably possesses a very unusual ability, a talking cat cannot be considered a "person" and is therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights, and even if the talking cat has such a right, there is no need for the cat's owners to assert the right jus tertii. A talking cat can clearly speak for on their own. Miles v. City Council, 710 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir. 1983).

Limiting hospital nurse's access to patients not unconstitutional. - Hospital which limited a nurse-midwife's access to certain patients had a primary interest in the safety and health of its patients which outweighed the nurse's right to speak freely on the issue of natural birth, and such limitation therefore did not offend the first amendment. Sweeney v. Athens Regional Medical Ctr., 705 F. Supp. 1556 (M.D. Ga. 1989).

Access to public places. - Streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of first amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S. Ct. 1029 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 196 (1976).

No total ban on parades in residential areas. - Cities may place reasonable restrictions on the right to parade in residential areas, but the activity may not be banned in toto. United Food & Com. Workers Union Local 422 v. City of Valdosta, 861 F. Supp. 1570 (M.D. Ga. 1994).

Notice of class action on defendant's property. - Notice of a class action against airlines could be published in in-flight magazines that were carried on defendants' airplanes and posted in defendants' ticket offices without offending the first amendment. In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 141 F.R.D. 534 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

City buses as public forum. - First amendment rights are not surrendered when one rides on or looks at a city bus. Buses operated daily by the city for the transportation of the public - like the city streets, city sidewalks, city auditorium, city coliseum, and city parks - are appropriate places and facilities for the exercise of first amendment rights. Stoner v. Thompson, 377 F. Supp. 585 (M.D. Ga. 1974).

Demonstration on sidewalk opposite courthouse. - Civil rights demonstration on sidewalk opposite courthouse is "speech plus," and is entitled to a lesser degree of protection than pure speech. United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 471 (N.D. Ga. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 48, 105 S. Ct. 1721 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 36 (1984).

Military base is ordinarily not a public forum for first amendment purposes. M.N.C. of Hinesville, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Defense, 791 F.2d 1466 (11th Cir. 1986).

Air Force regulation prohibiting certain bumper stickers. - Air Force regulation prohibiting bumper stickers which embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief was viewpoint neutral, and was reasonable since the military has an interest in promoting order and discipline and only prohibited display of disparaging bumper stickers on base. Ethredge v. Hail, 795 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Ga. 1992), order vacated and appeal dismissed, 996 F.2d 1173 (11th Cir. 1993), aff'd, 56 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1995).

Seizure of materials. - When materials are seized in violation of U.S. Const., amend. 1, the appropriate remedy is the return of the seized property, but not its suppression as evidence at trial. United States v. Bush, 582 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1978).

Seizure properly anchored in probable cause can offend constitutional constraints when media of expression, such as movie films, are implicated. Presumptive free speech materials are qualitatively different from other kinds of alleged contraband. United States v. Bush, 582 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1978).

Publication of information in court records. - States may not impose sanctions on publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S. Ct. 1029 , 43 L. Ed. 2 d 328 (1975).

Publication of information in court records. - The press may not be exposed to liability for truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court records. Munoz v. American Lawyer Media, 236 Ga. App. 462 , 512 S.E.2d 347 (1999).

State Bar Rules. - An argument that State Bar Rules 4-102 (Standard 4), 4-202, 4-203(a)(2), 4-221(d) and 4-225(d) were unconstitutional because they violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment and because they impinged upon the first amendment right of free speech and redress was meritless. Cohran v. State Bar, 790 F. Supp. 1568 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

Advisory decision on validity of statute attacked on first amendment ground not to be rendered. - Where a plaintiff contends that a local ordinance is unconstitutional by first amendment standards as denying the plaintiff's freedom of expression by preventing the plaintiff from performing a particular dance, and such dance may also be prohibited by a general statute, but no attack is made on the general statute, and the dance has not been performed, a decision as to the validity of the ordinance would be abstract or advisory only by its very nature, and it is proper to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. Jenkins v. Thomas, 124 Ga. App. 286 , 183 S.E.2d 489 (1971).

Requirement of prior adversary hearing is not warranted to protect first amendment rights where, inter alia, a speedy trial is available in state court. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 454 F. Supp. 289 (N.D. Ga. 1978).

Standing. - Rules of standing have been expanded in the area of first amendment rights and special considerations are granted to litigants seeking to preserve rights of free expression. American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

It is not necessary that a party first expose oneself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that the person claims deters the exercise of the person's constitutional rights. American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Protection of Anti-SLAPP statute. - Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1(b) and (c), provides protection for acts that can reasonably be construed as acts in furtherance of one's right of free speech or right to petition the government for redress of grievances in connection with an issue of public concern; such acts include any written or oral statement, writing, or petition made before or to a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, or such a statement or petition made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by such a governmental body, even including those that initiate a proceeding to address matters of public concern. Harkins v. Atlanta Humane Soc'y, 264 Ga. App. 356 , 590 S.E.2d 737 (2003).

Right to fair trial versus rights of public to gain access to hearings in criminal cases. - See R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576 , 292 S.E.2d 815 (1982).

Punishment for contempt not proper means to expose errors in expression. - People are entitled to speak as they please on matters vital to them; errors in judgment, or unsubstantiated opinions may be exposed, but not through punishment for contempt for the expression. Under the system of government, counterargument and education are the weapons available to expose these matters, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S. Ct. 1364 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 569 (1962).

Contempt order based on true newspaper articles fatally defective. - Rule for contempt issued by superior court judge, based on a series of newspaper articles, is fatally defective where the publications complained of were true, they related to a matter in another court and in nowise referred to the court issuing the rule and where they could not have obstructed or impaired the administration of justice in the court. McGill v. State, 209 Ga. 500 , 74 S.E.2d 78 (1953).

Injunction restricting activities of abortion protesters. - Injunction issued pursuant to a city ordinance declaring the actions of abortion protesters to be a public nuisance was not unconstitutional since the protesters were permitted to exercise their right of free speech by engaging in social protest, limited only by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Hirsh v. City of Atlanta, 261 Ga. 22 , 401 S.E.2d 530 , cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1221, 111 S. Ct. 2836 , 115 L. Ed. 2 d 1004 (1991).

Motorcycle helmet law. - The motorcycle helmet law, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315 , does not require that the Georgia Board of Public Safety issue a list approving specific types of headgear and, therefore, the failure of the board to publish a list of approved headgear and eye-protective devices did not violate the plaintiff's rights under the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. ABATE of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 924, 122 S. Ct. 2592 , 153 L. Ed. 2 d 781 (2002).

Assisted suicide. - O.C.G.A. § 16-5-5(b) is unconstitutional under the free speech provisions of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, U.S. Const., amend. I and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. V, because it is not all assisted suicides that are criminalized but only those that include a public advertisement or offer to assist; because the state failed to provide any explanation or evidence as to why a public advertisement or offer to assist in an otherwise legal activity was sufficiently problematic to justify an intrusion on protected speech rights, it could not, consistent with the United States and Georgia Constitutions, make the public advertisement or offer to assist in a suicide a criminal offense. Final Exit Network, Inc. v. State, 290 Ga. 508 , 722 S.E.2d 722 (2012).

2. Limitations

Freedom of speech and press not absolute. - It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom. Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55 , 166 S.E. 827 (1932), later appeal, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933).

The right of free speech is not an unlimited right. It entitles an individual to advocate certain ideas regardless of their popularity, but it does not extend to the threatening of terror, inciting of riots, or placing another's life or property in danger. Masson v. Slaton, 320 F. Supp. 669 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

All speech is not ultimately protected under U.S. Const., amend. 1. State v. Davis, 246 Ga. 761 , 272 S.E.2d 721 (1980).

State may punish those abusing freedom of speech and press. - That a state in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse the freedom of speech and press by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace, is not open to question. Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55 , 166 S.E. 827 (1932), later appeal, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933).

Speech advocating overthrow of government by unlawful means prohibited. - A state may penalize utterances which openly advocate the overthrow of the representative and constitutional form of government of the United States and the several states, by violence or other unlawful means. Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55 , 166 S.E. 827 (1932), later appeal, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933).

Freedom of speech and press does not protect disturbances to public peace or the attempt to subvert the government. It does not protect publications or teachings which tend to subvert or imperil the government or to impede or hinder it in the performance of its governmental duties. Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55 , 166 S.E. 827 (1932), later appeal, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933).

Freedom of speech and press does not protect publications prompting the overthrow of government by force, the punishment of those who publish articles which tend to destroy organized society being essential to the security of freedom and the stability of the state. Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55 , 166 S.E. 827 (1932), later appeal, 176 Ga. 747 , 169 S.E. 201 (1933).

Question in every case is whether words used are used in such circumstances and of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Speech which advocates a violation of the law is protected except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. State v. Davis, 246 Ga. 761 , 272 S.E.2d 721 (1980).

"Fighting words" not protected speech. - "Fighting words" constitute one of those narrow speech areas not constitutionally protected. State v. Klinakis, 206 Ga. App. 318 , 425 S.E.2d 665 (1992).

Whether words are "fighting" words to be decided by jury. - Whether certain words were "fighting" words, tending to provoke violence, was a question of fact to be decided by the jury, not a question of law to be decided by the court. Wilson v. Attaway, 757 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1985).

Violent threats unprotected. - The communication of terroristic threats to another person to commit a crime of violence upon that person clearly falls outside of those communications and expressions which are protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1. Lanthrip v. State, 235 Ga. 10 , 218 S.E.2d 771 (1975).

Certain utterances not within purview of first amendment. - Utterances which are not an essential part of any exposition of idea or which are not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion are not within the purview of U.S. Const., amend. 1. United States v. Irving, 509 F.2d 1325 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931, 96 S. Ct. 281 , 46 L. Ed. 2 d 259 (1975).

Extortionate speech has no constitutional protection. United States v. Quinn, 514 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 955, 96 S. Ct. 1430 , 47 L. Ed. 2 d 361 (1976).

Exceptions to free speech rights. - Recognized exceptions to constitutionally guaranteed speech include obscene material, fighting words, defamation, intolerable invasions of privacy, disruptions of the classroom, incitement to imminent lawless activity, and solicitation of illegal activity. High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ga. 1978), aff 'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980).

There are various defined categories of speech or communicative conduct which are not entitled to constitutional protection. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Walt Disney Prods., Inc. v. Shannon, 247 Ga. 402 , 276 S.E.2d 580 (1981).

O.C.G.A. § 15-19-51(a)(7) did not limit defendant's right to free speech under U.S. Const., amend. 1 or Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. 1, Para. V, as defendant had no right to engage in speech which was calculated to deceive or mislead people into thinking that the defendant was qualified to practice law. Marks v. State, 280 Ga. 70 , 623 S.E.2d 504 (2005).

Prohibiting clear and present danger speech. - Utterance can be suppressed or penalized on ground that it tends to incite immediate breach of peace, if the words used are such in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Walt Disney Prods., Inc. v. Shannon, 247 Ga. 402 , 276 S.E.2d 580 (1981).

The utterance is not protected if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Walt Disney Prods., Inc. v. Shannon, 247 Ga. 402 , 276 S.E.2d 580 (1981).

Justifiable limitations on speech when combined with regulated "nonspeech". - When "speech" and "nonspeech" elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on first amendment freedoms. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

No one would have the hardihood to suggest that freedom of speech sanctions are an incitement to riot. There might exist special, limited circumstances in which speech is so interlaced with burgeoning violence that it is not protected by the broad guarantee of U.S. Const., amend. 1. Sumbry v. Land, 127 Ga. App. 786 , 195 S.E.2d 228 (1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1079, 94 S. Ct. 598 , 38 L. Ed. 2 d 486 (1973).

Unprotected types of speech. - There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Atlanta Coop. News Project v. United States Postal Serv., 350 F. Supp. 234 (N.D. Ga. 1972).

Motion pictures not entitled to protection afforded press. - Motion pictures are not to be regarded as a part of the press of the country or organs of public opinion and as such entitled to the protection afforded the press. RD-DR Corp. v. Smith, 89 F. Supp. 596 (N.D. Ga. 1950), aff'd, 183 F.2d 562 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 853, 1 S. Ct. 80 , 95 L. Ed. 625 (1950).

Motion pictures not to be regarded as part of press. - The exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. Carter v. Gautier, 305 F. Supp. 1098 (M.D. Ga. 1969).

Contemptuous statements not protected. - Statements made in the presence of the court or outside of the presence of the court are protected by the guarantee of freedom of speech of the U.S. Const., amends. 1 and 14 and by the Georgia Constitution 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. V, while contemptuous statements are not so protected. A statement is contemptuous and therefore not constitutionally protected when it poses a present danger to the orderly administration of justice but neither an inherent nor a reasonable tendency to do so is enough to justify a restriction of free expression. Garland v. State, 253 Ga. 789 , 325 S.E.2d 131 (1985).

Free speech limitations at trial. - Limitations on free speech assume different proportion when expression is directed toward trial as compared to grand jury investigation. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S. Ct. 1364 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 569 (1962).

Publisher of newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. A publisher has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975 , 18 L. Ed. 2 d 1094 (1967).

Acts of nonstudents on campus enjoined as trespass and nuisance. - Acts of nonstudents on the grounds of a private university performed in observance of a vigil in memory of a well-known public figure were enjoined where such acts constituted trespass and nuisance. Griffin v. Trustees of Atlanta Univ., 225 Ga. 859 , 171 S.E.2d 618 (1969).

Hair style may be distinguished from other forms of expression in that it is not a direct, primary right under U.S. Const., amend. 1. Even where the wearing of long hair is assumed to be symbolic expression, it falls within that type of expression which is manifested through conduct and is therefore subject to reasonable state regulation in furtherance of a legitimate state interest. Stevenson v. Wheeler County Bd. of Educ., 306 F. Supp. 97 (S.D. Ga. 1969), aff'd, 426 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 957, 91 S. Ct. 355 , 27 L. Ed. 2 d 265 (1970).

Hair length is not an absolute first amendment right. Howell v. Wolf, 331 F. Supp. 1342 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Right to wear one's hair as one sees fit has not been found to be within the periphery of any of our specific constitutional rights. There is no constitutionally protected right - plainly expressed or within the penumbra, the shadow, of the U.S. Const., amends. 1, 8, 9, 10 or 14 - to wear one's hair in a public high school in the length and style that suits the wearer. Ashley v. City of Macon, 377 F. Supp. 540 (M.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd, 505 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1975).

People cannot claim to hold an unearned degree. - First amendment rights are not violated by the state's refusal to allow a person to hold oneself out to the public under a degree which the person has not earned. Oliver v. Morton, 361 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Prohibiting unlawful picketing. - State may prohibit picketing directed at achieving a union shop in violation of state law. United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 471 (N.D. Ga. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 48, 105 S. Ct. 1721 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 36 (1984).

Draft card burning is conduct not protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1. United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 471 (N.D. Ga. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 48, 105 S. Ct. 1721 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 36 (1984).

State subdivision can constitutionally restrict facial hair of its male police officers because of its strong interest in having law enforcement personnel present a uniform appearance to the public. Nalley v. Douglas County, 498 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Neither criminal nor civil law may be used to restrict free speech. - For purposes of U.S. Const., amend. 1, whether an utterance is suppressed under criminal law or penalized under tort law makes no difference. What a state may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. Walt Disney Prods., Inc. v. Shannon, 247 Ga. 402 , 276 S.E.2d 580 (1981).

Uttered invitation to child did not present clear and present danger of injury. - Under first amendment jurisprudence, the adult should not be subjected to liability solely on the ground that statements uttered by the adult constituted an invitation to a child to do something causing the child injury, unless what the adult invited the child to do presented a clear and present danger that injury would in fact result. Although what the defendants allegedly invited the child to do during the course of a television broadcast posed a foreseeable risk of injury, it did not pose a clear and present danger of injury. Walt Disney Prods., Inc. v. Shannon, 247 Ga. 402 , 276 S.E.2d 580 (1981).

There is no absolute first amendment right to inspect judicial records. Instead, the media's access to judicial materials rests on a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. United States v. Eaves, 685 F. Supp. 1243 (N.D. Ga. 1988).

Ante litem notice not protected. - Plaintiff's ante litem notice under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5 against the city did not constitute speech protected by U.S. Const., amend. 1. Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1997).

3. Regulatory Powers

Ordinance prohibiting disorderly conduct. - City ordinances prohibiting disorderly conduct in the city have no connection whatever with infringement of the constitutional rights in U.S. Const., amend. 1. Bennett v. City of Dalton, 69 Ga. App. 438 , 25 S.E.2d 726 , appeal dismissed, 320 U.S. 712, 64 S. Ct. 197 , 88 L. Ed. 418 (1943).

Ordinance prohibiting loud speakers from vehicles valid. - An ordinance forbidding the operation upon the public streets, alleys, or thoroughfares by any person, firm, or corporation of a loud speaker or public address system from any vehicle is not an infringement upon the rights of the defendant granted to the defendant by the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States. The thoroughfares of cities are maintained by the public and to say that anyone has a constitutional right to use, on these streets, a loud speaker or public address system from any vehicle seems to overlap and interfere with the constitutional rights of other people. It makes no difference whether the violator is using the loud speaker to broadcast what the violater terms recorded sermons or using the loudspeaker for vending goods or promoting some political candidate or for some other purpose. Brinkman v. City of Gainesville, 83 Ga. App. 508 , 64 S.E.2d 344 (1951).

Ordinance requiring license for soliciting labor union members invalid. - Ordinance of City of Baxley shows on its face that it is repugnant to and violative of the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States in that it places a condition precedent upon, and otherwise unlawfully restricts, the defendant's freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press and freedom of lawful assembly by requiring, as conditions precedent to the exercise of those rights, the issuance of a license which the mayor and city council are authorized by the ordinance to grant or refuse in their discretion, and the payment of a license fee which is discriminatory and unreasonable in amount and constitutes a prohibitory flat tax upon the privilege of soliciting persons to join a labor union. Staub v. City of Baxley, 97 Ga. App. 221 , 102 S.E.2d 643 (1958).

Licensing fees. - Governments may enact ordinances for legitimate purposes requiring those who would exercise their freedom of speech to obtain a license in advance; fees intended for the purpose of reimbursement of the costs of administering a licensing scheme that impacts businesses exercising their first amendment rights have been held by the U.S. Supreme Court to withstand constitutional muster. I.D.K., Inc. v. Ferdinand, 277 Ga. 548 , 592 S.E.2d 673 (2004).

Placement of portable signs. - The portion of a county ordinance that required portable signs to be set back from the building setback line did not further the county's substantial governmental interests in either traffic safety or aesthetics and was, accordingly, unconstitutional. Dills v. Cobb County, 593 F. Supp. 170 (N.D. Ga. 1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 1473 (11th Cir. 1985).

Olympic Sign Ordinance. - The Olympic Sign Ordinance, which creates a five-member committee charged with recommending "Concentrated Sign Districts" within the City of Atlanta and empowers the committee to grant permits to those desiring to erect signs pursuant to that ordinance and which permits only those signs which in some way promote an Olympic-related event, is unconstitutional in that it violates the first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Outdoor Sys. v. City of Atlanta, 885 F. Supp. 1572 (N.D. Ga. 1995).

1994 Sign Ordinance. - The 1994 Sign Ordinance, a comprehensive regulatory framework for the posting of all signs within the City of Atlanta, does not violate equal protection or free speech guarantees. Outdoor Sys. v. City of Atlanta, 885 F. Supp. 1572 (N.D. Ga. 1995).

County ordinance's ban of off-premise, commercial billboards was an unconstitutional restraint on commercial speech, in the absence of any evidence that county officials considered esthetics and traffic safety before adopting the ordinance. Adams Outdoor Adv. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Fulton County, 738 F. Supp. 1431 (N.D. Ga. 1990).

Ban of off-premises signs in historic district. - Ordinance prohibiting off-premises signs in the city's historic district and in various specific locations was viewpoint neutral and did not favor commercial over non-commercial speech. Messer v. City of Douglasville, 975 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 930, 113 S. Ct. 2395 , 124 L. Ed. 2 d 296 (1993).

The government's interest in the aesthetics of a designated historic district were sufficiently significant to override the first amendment rights of a property owner to off-premise noncommercial signs. Messer v. City of Douglasville, 975 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 930, 113 S. Ct. 2395 , 124 L. Ed. 2 d 296 (1993).

Exemptions from ordinance permitting process. - System of exemptions from the sign-permitting process did not violate the first amendment since the ordinance exempted from permitting requirements and permit fees and not from a general ban of all off-premise billboards; and since the exemptions did not favor commercial over noncommercial messages or express a preference between different noncommercial messages. Messer v. City of Douglasville, 975 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 930, 113 S. Ct. 2395 , 124 L. Ed. 2 d 296 (1993).

Ordinance limiting the maximum number of portable display signs that can be issued to a business to one temporary permit for every six months, the permit to last for a maximum of 16 days, was constitutional. Messer v. City of Douglasville, 975 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 930, 113 S. Ct. 2395 , 124 L. Ed. 2 d 296 (1993).

Discretion to vary parade fees. - The free speech guarantees of the first and fourteenth amendments are violated by an assembly and parade ordinance that permits a government administrator to vary the fee for assembling or parading to reflect the estimated cost of maintaining public order since the decision how much to charge for police protection or administrative time - or even whether to charge at all - is left to the whim of the administrator, without any articulated standards either in the ordinance or in the county's established practice, and because the fee will depend on the administrator's measure of the amount of hostility likely to be created by the speech based on its content. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 112 S. Ct. 2395 , 120 L. Ed. 2 d 101 (1992).

Neither the $1,000 cap on the fee charged, nor even some lower nominal cap, can save an unconstitutional assembly and parade ordinance because the level of the fee is irrelevant; a tax based on the content of the speech does not become more constitutional because it is a small tax. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 112 S. Ct. 2395 , 120 L. Ed. 2 d 101 (1992).

Municipal needs for protection of public overbalance inconvenience to paraders. - The needs of the municipal authorities for notice of the time at which a parade, march, demonstration, assembly, or picketing is to take place in order to protect the general public, including those participating in such an activity, overbalances the inconvenience to plaintiffs of foreseeing the activity and applying for a permit by 4:00 P.M. on the day before the activity. Jackson v. Dobbs, 329 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff'd, 442 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1971).

Municipal parade permit valid. - The requirement that a parade permit be secured in order to enable municipal authorities to limit the amount of interference with use of the sidewalks by other members of the public by regulating the time, place, and manner of the parade, is valid under the first amendment. Jackson v. Dobbs, 329 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff'd, 442 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1971).

Ordinance banning parades on Saturday mornings was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on speech. Nationalist Movement v. City of Cumming, 92 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1058, 117 S. Ct. 688 , 136 L. Ed. 2 d 612 (1997).

Regulation of "nonspeech". - There is a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating "nonspeech" so as to justify incidental limitations on first amendment rights only if the governmental regulation is within the constitutional power of the government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged first amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Municipality may not restrict access to auditorium. - Municipality may not empower its licensing officials to dispense or withhold permission to speak, assemble, picket, or parade, according to their own opinions regarding the potential effect of the activity in question on the "welfare," "decency," or "morals" of the community. Municipal officials do not, solely by reason of their authority to manage a municipal civic center and auditorium, have the unfettered right to censor and monitor the types of speech, and to prescribe the types of productions which may be performed in such a public auditorium. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

City officials have an obligation to make a municipal auditorium available to all for the exercise of first amendment rights despite the fact that the potential users might be able to go elsewhere or that they hope to make money. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Municipality may prevent monopolization of auditorium. - City may set up various procedural rules so that one person cannot monopolize a municipal auditorium or use it for a purpose for which it is not physically suited. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Level of scrutiny. - In a prior restraint of speech setting, to determine what level of scrutiny applies to an ordinance, a court must decide whether the regulation is related to the suppression of expression; if the governmental purpose in enacting the regulation is unrelated to the suppression of expression, then the regulation need only satisfy the "less stringent" O'Brien standard for evaluating restrictions on symbolic speech. I.D.K., Inc. v. Ferdinand, 277 Ga. 548 , 592 S.E.2d 673 (2004).

Statutes limiting speech must be narrowly drawn. - Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech forbid states to punish use of words or language not within narrowly limited classes of speech. In other words, the statute must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 , 31 L. Ed. 2 d 408 (1972).

Regulation of speech containing "fighting" words. - State has power constitutionally to punish "fighting" words under carefully drawn statutes not also susceptible of application to protected expression. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 , 31 L. Ed. 2 d 408 (1972).

U.S. Air Force base order barring bumper stickers. - An administrative order barring from a U.S. Air Force base "bumper stickers or other paraphernalia" that "embarrass or disparage" the President was viewpoint neutral and reasonable; accordingly, the order did not violate the first amendment. Ethredge v. Hail, 56 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1995).

Federal regulation of emergency care clinics. - Federal government regulations governing freestanding emergency care clinics violated first amendment rights of plaintiff physicians, where the regulations were more extensive than necessary to serve the governmental interest of prohibiting misleading advertising and were impermissibly vague in providing that facilities which used such terms as "emergency," "crisis," "sudden," "acute," or a similar meaning term fell within the regulatory ambit. Primary Care Physicians Group v. Ledbetter, 634 F. Supp. 78 (N.D. Ga. 1986).

Federal regulation of solicitors on postal property. - A federal regulation prohibiting solicitation of contributions on postal property did not violate U.S. Const., amend. 1. United States v. Belsky, 799 F.2d 1485 (11th Cir. 1986).

Internal Revenue Service regulations. - Institute which certifies those who offer tax service to the public failed in its attempt to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from enforcement of a directive prohibiting the use of the term "certified" by an individual who practices as an "enrolled agent" for the Internal Revenue Service; the institute failed to establish that the directive placed an unconstitutional burden on its first amendment rights in that it did not show any instance of threatened enforcement action by the Internal Revenue Service and did not show a concrete factual situation sufficient to establish a case in controversy. Institute of Certified Practitioners, Inc. v. Bentsen, 874 F. Supp. 1370 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

Statute outlawing economic exploitation of racial bias valid although inhibiting of speech. - A statute which makes unlawful economic exploitation of racial bias and panic-selling is one regulating conduct, and any inhibiting effect it may have upon speech is justified by the government's interest in protecting its citizens from discriminatory housing practices and is not violative of the first amendment. United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc., 474 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 826, 94 S. Ct. 131 ,