Legal Opinion
Elgin v. United States
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided March 11, 2010No. Civil Action 07-12391-DPWPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, District Judge.
The Plaintiffs are male U.S. residents who lost or were denied employment positions in federal agencies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3328, for having failed to register for military service with the Selective Service System as required by federal law. In a January 26, 2009 Memorandum and Order, I determined that 5 U.S.C. § 3328 was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Elgin v. United States, 594 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.Mass.2009). The case is now before me on three motions: the motion by the Defendants to reconsider the Court’s bill of attainder…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Woodford v. NgoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- McKart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Pegram v. HerdrichSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Elgin v. Department of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Elgin v. U.S. Department of the TreasuryCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011
- Elgin v. Department of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Elgin v. U.S. Department of the TreasuryCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011