The argument against regulating banks is that the regulations would violate the proper functioning of the free market economy.

The suit charges that the regulation violates their civil rights by restricting their ability to earn a living.

But there's a second stream of opposition, those who say the proposed regulations are onerous and violate the First Amendment.

The court held that the regulation violated the constitutional guarantee of equal rights.

In its 5-to-0 ruling, the court said that "although authorized, the regulation violates fundamental principles relating to the regulatory process."

In addition, she said, the new regulations violate women's rights to abortion, and go against Congress's intent in financing family-planning programs.

"By censoring what clinic staff can say to patients, the regulations violate the constitutional right of professionals to speak and patients to hear," she said.

Critics of this view reply, however, that the regulations not only violate medical ethics, but a physician's right to free speech.

Publishers argue that this regulation violates the First Amendment.

It was clearly shown that the Administration's regulations were violating the welfare laws.