skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Did you mean food and drug or drug or FDA?

Your query (food and drug) or drug or FDA returned 173 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.
[Syllabus]
Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
958 PLIVA, INC. V. MENSING
[Syllabus]
720 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Opinion]
715 WYETH V. LEVINE
[Syllabus]
685 THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER
[Syllabus]
The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
682 MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD.
[Syllabus]
661 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Dissent]
626 BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL COMM.
[Syllabus]
Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
599 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
596 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
586 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Concurrence]
517 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS
[Syllabus]
Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
517 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Syllabus]
510 CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997)
[Syllabus]
510 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Concurrence]
509 MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996).
[Syllabus]
494 BURGESS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
494 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Dissent]
477 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Concurrence]
446 MORSE V. FREDERICK
[Syllabus]
446 ********
[Opinion]
446 WHALEN V. ROE
[Opinion]
434 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
434 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Dissent]
423 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Concurrence]
409 MV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
409 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Opinion]
395
[Syllabus]
395
[Syllabus]
395 UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG
[Dissent]
380 UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ
[Syllabus]
380 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER
[Syllabus]
Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
380 KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
380 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
380 VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
[Syllabus]
380 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN
[Dissent]
361 LOPEZ V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
361 RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC.
[Syllabus]
361 PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MFRS. OFAMERICA V. WALSH
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
361 BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996).
[Syllabus]
361 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Opinion]
361 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Opinion]
342 EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
342 ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY
[Syllabus]
342 MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ
[Dissent]
342 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Opinion]
342 UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON
[Opinion]
342 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
342 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Concurrence]
342 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Concurrence]
342 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Syllabus]
342 FLORIDA V. BOSTICK
[Dissent]
320
[Syllabus]
320 GONZALES V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
320 CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
320 ABUELHAWA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
320 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
320 ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990)
[Syllabus]
320 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Opinion]
320 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Dissent]
320 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN
[Opinion]
295 LOPEZ V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
295 PEPPER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
295
[Syllabus]
295
[Syllabus]
295 RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997).
[Syllabus]
295 UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABISBUYERS’ COOPERATIVE
[Syllabus]
There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
295 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Opinion]
295 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Syllabus]
295 UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG
[Opinion]
295 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Opinion]
294 MERCK & CO. V. REYNOLDS
[Syllabus]
294 SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES
[Opinion]
264 UNITED STATES V. COTTON
[Syllabus]
A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
264 ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
264 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
264
[Syllabus]
264 UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
264 RAYTHEON CO. V. HERNANDEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
264 UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON
[Syllabus]
The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
264
[Syllabus]
264 GONZALES V. RAICH
[Syllabus]
264
[Syllabus]
264 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Opinion]
264 STANFORD V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
264 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Opinion]
264 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
264 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
264 UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON
[Syllabus]
264 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Dissent]
264 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Concurrence]
228 UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997).
[Syllabus]
228 BUFORD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
228
[Syllabus]
228 UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO
[Syllabus]
228
[Syllabus]
228 EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998)
[Syllabus]
228
[Syllabus]
228 RICHARDSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
228
[Syllabus]
228 UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
[Syllabus]
228 WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
[Syllabus]
228 BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
[Syllabus]
228
[Syllabus]
228 JACOBSON V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
228 DOE V. BOLTON
[Opinion]
228 FLORIDA V. BOSTICK
[Opinion]
228 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
228 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
228 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Syllabus]
228 MICHIGAN V. LONG
[Opinion]
228 LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO
[Opinion]
228 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Concurrence]
228 BROWN V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
228 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Opinion]
228 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Opinion]
180 DEAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
180 RICE V. COLLINS
[Syllabus]
180 UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
180 ARIZONA V. GANT
[Syllabus]
180 BELL V. CONE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
180 DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996).
[Syllabus]
180 LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995).
[Syllabus]
180 562 U. S. ____ (2011)
[Syllabus]
180
[Syllabus]
180 WYOMING V. HOUGHTON
[Syllabus]
180 DV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
180
[Syllabus]
180 FLORIDA V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
180
[Syllabus]
180 DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992).
[Syllabus]
180 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
180 OHLER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a ruling granting the government's in limine motion to introduce evidence of her prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if she attempts to "" remove the sting"" of the conviction by introducing the conviction while testifying on direct examination?"
180
[Syllabus]
180 NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996).
[Syllabus]
180 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
180 UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997)
[Syllabus]
180 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
180 WATSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
180 MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998)
[Syllabus]
180 CALIFORNIA V. CARNEY
[Syllabus]
180 OHIO V. ROBINETTE
[Concurrence]
180 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
180 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Opinion]
180 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Syllabus]
180 STANFORD V. KENTUCKY
[Opinion]
180 RENO V. ACLU
[Opinion]
180 GREER V. SPOCK
[Opinion]
180 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
180 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY
[Dissent]
180 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Dissent]
180 ********
[Dissent]
180 BELL V. OHIO
[Opinion]
180 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Opinion]
180 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
180 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
180 FLORIDA V. BOSTICK
[Syllabus]
180 WHALEN V. ROE
[Concurrence]
180 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Opinion]
180 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
180 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Opinion]
180 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Dissent]
180 ********
[Opinion]
180 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Dissent]
180 ROE V. WADE
[Opinion]
180 CALIFORNIA V. CARNEY
[Opinion]
180 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Opinion]
180 WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO
[Opinion]
180 RENO V. ACLU
[Concurrence]
180 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Opinion]
180 SCHICK V. REED
[Dissent]
114
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)
[Syllabus]
114 ALVAREZ V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
114 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND
[Syllabus]
Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
114 CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 OREGON V. ICE
[Syllabus]
114 FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995).
[Syllabus]
114 DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
114 HERRING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO
[Syllabus]
Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
114
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER
[Syllabus]
Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
114 HARRINGTON V. RICHTER
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ
[Syllabus]
114 KNOWLES V. IOWA
[Syllabus]
114 FLORIDA V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
Because the judgment below was not "[f]inal" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
114 HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998)
[Syllabus]
114 BLOATE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997).
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997)
[Syllabus]
114 MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC. V. SIRACUSANO
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 VIRGINIA V. HICKS
[Syllabus]
1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
114 ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
[Syllabus]
114 SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
114 GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG.
[Syllabus]
114 FELLERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
114 UNITED STATES V. RUIZ
[Syllabus]
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
114 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 OVERTON V. BAZZETTA
[Syllabus]
In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
114 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. BOOKER
[Syllabus]
114 TAPIA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 BOND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
114 UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990)
[Syllabus]
114 COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER
[Syllabus]
Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
114 CLAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
114 UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS
[Syllabus]
The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
114 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
114 NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE
[Syllabus]
114 PADILLA V. KENTUCKY
[Syllabus]
114 HUDSON V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR
[Syllabus]
Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
114
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. TINKLENBERG
[Syllabus]
114 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
114 SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
114 SORRELL V. IMS HEALTH INC.
[Syllabus]
114 WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).
[Syllabus]
114 KYLLO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Where the Government uses a device, such as a thermal imager, that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
114 UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU
[Syllabus]
Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.
114 DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO
[Syllabus]
114 CONE V. BELL
[Syllabus]
114 MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. JIMENEZ RECIO
[Syllabus]
A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object.
114 VIRGINIA V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 THORNTON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
114 CASTRO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
114 WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS
[Syllabus]
A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
114 BEGAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC.
[Syllabus]
114 WHITFIELD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114 KENTUCKY V. KING
[Syllabus]
114 MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Syllabus]
114 KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER
[Syllabus]
Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
114 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT. V. UNITED REPORTINGPUBLISHING CORP.
[Syllabus]
Whether the government violates the First Amendment when it releases records but forbids their commercial use?
114 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995).
[Syllabus]
114 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
114
[Syllabus]
114 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
114 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).
[Syllabus]
114 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Concurrence]
114 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
114 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
114 ROMER V. EVANS
[Dissent]
114 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
114 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
114 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE
[Concurrence]
114 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Dissent]
114 OHIO V. ROBINETTE
[Dissent]
114 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
114 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Concurrence]
114 MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO
[Opinion]
114 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Dissent]
114 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Concurrence]
114 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Concurrence]
114 HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER
[Opinion]
114 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
114 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Opinion]
114 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Concurrence]
114 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concurrence]
114 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO.
[Opinion]
114 BROWN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
114 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Dissent]
114 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
114 UNITED STATES V. ROSS
[Opinion]
114 BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC.
[Concurrence]
114 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Opinion]
114 CALIFORNIA V. GREENWOOD
[Opinion]
114 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Concurrence]
114 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 GOLDBERG V. KELLY
[Opinion]
114 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Opinion]
114 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Opinion]
114 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Syllabus]
114 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN
[Syllabus]
114 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Concurrence]
114 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Opinion]
114 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Opinion]
114 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT
[Opinion]
114 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT
[Opinion]
114 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
114 UNITED STATES V. SALERNO
[Opinion]
114 ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Dissent]
114 MULFORD V. SMITH
[Dissent]
114 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Concurrence]
114 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
114 WHALEN V. ROE
[Syllabus]
114 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
114 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
114 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Opinion]
114 ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
114 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Opinion]
114 OHIO V. ROBERTS
[Opinion]
114 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Dissent]
114 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE
[Opinion]
114 BEAL V. DOE
[Opinion]
114 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Syllabus]
114 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
114 JACOBELLIS V. OHIO
[Opinion]
114 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Concurrence]
114 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Syllabus]
114 ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS
[Concurrence]
114 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
114 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Dissent]
114 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
114 BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY
[Opinion]
114 TEXAS V. JOHNSON
[Opinion]
114 DOYLE V. OHIO
[Opinion]
114 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
114 ********
[Syllabus]
114 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
114 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Opinion]
114 MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ
[Concurrence]
114 PROFFITT V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
114 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
114 ********
[Syllabus]
1000 FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.
[Syllabus]
Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
926 PLIVA, INC. V. MENSING
[Syllabus]
745 THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER
[Syllabus]
The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
727 WYETH V. LEVINE
[Syllabus]
691 MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD.
[Syllabus]
585 BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL COMM.
[Syllabus]
Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
452 MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996).
[Syllabus]
389 ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990)
[Syllabus]
375 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS
[Syllabus]
Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
370 CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997)
[Syllabus]
358 BURGESS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
323 MORSE V. FREDERICK
[Syllabus]
297 MV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
286
[Syllabus]
286
[Syllabus]
275 UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ
[Syllabus]
275 KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
275 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
275 VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
[Syllabus]
275 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER
[Syllabus]
Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
262 PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MFRS. OFAMERICA V. WALSH
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
262 RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC.
[Syllabus]
262 BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996).
[Syllabus]
262 LOPEZ V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
248 EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
248 ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY
[Syllabus]
237 562 U. S. ____ (2011)
[Syllabus]
232 ABUELHAWA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
232 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
232
[Syllabus]
232 CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
232 GONZALES V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
214 PEPPER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 LOPEZ V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABISBUYERS’ COOPERATIVE
[Syllabus]
There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
214 RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997).
[Syllabus]
213 MERCK & CO. V. REYNOLDS
[Syllabus]
191 GONZALES V. RAICH
[Syllabus]
191
[Syllabus]
191
[Syllabus]
191 RAYTHEON CO. V. HERNANDEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
191 ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
191 UNITED STATES V. COTTON
[Syllabus]
A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
191 UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
191
[Syllabus]
191 UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON
[Syllabus]
The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
191 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
165 DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO
[Syllabus]
165 BUFORD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
165 BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
[Syllabus]
165 WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
[Syllabus]
165 UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165 UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997).
[Syllabus]
165 EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998)
[Syllabus]
165 UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
[Syllabus]
165 RICHARDSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
165 MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC. V. SIRACUSANO
[Syllabus]
130 WATSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
130
[Syllabus]
130
[Syllabus]
130 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
130 ARIZONA V. GANT
[Syllabus]
130 DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992).
[Syllabus]
130
[Syllabus]
130 NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996).
[Syllabus]
130 DEAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
130 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
130 MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998)
[Syllabus]
130 OHLER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a ruling granting the government's in limine motion to introduce evidence of her prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if she attempts to "" remove the sting"" of the conviction by introducing the conviction while testifying on direct examination?"
130 LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995).
[Syllabus]
130 BELL V. CONE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
130 WYOMING V. HOUGHTON
[Syllabus]
130
[Syllabus]
130 RICE V. COLLINS
[Syllabus]
130 UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
130 UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997)
[Syllabus]
130 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
130 FLORIDA V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
130 DV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
130 DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996).
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)
[Syllabus]
82 ALVAREZ V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
82 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND
[Syllabus]
Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
82 CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 OREGON V. ICE
[Syllabus]
82 FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995).
[Syllabus]
82 DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
82 HERRING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO
[Syllabus]
Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
82
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER
[Syllabus]
Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
82 HARRINGTON V. RICHTER
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ
[Syllabus]
82 KNOWLES V. IOWA
[Syllabus]
82 FLORIDA V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
Because the judgment below was not "[f]inal" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
82 HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998)
[Syllabus]
82 BLOATE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997).
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997)
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 VIRGINIA V. HICKS
[Syllabus]
1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
82 ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
[Syllabus]
82 SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
82 GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG.
[Syllabus]
82 FELLERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
82 UNITED STATES V. RUIZ
[Syllabus]
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
82 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 OVERTON V. BAZZETTA
[Syllabus]
In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
82 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. BOOKER
[Syllabus]
82 TAPIA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 BOND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
82 UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990)
[Syllabus]
82 COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER
[Syllabus]
Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
82 CLAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
82 UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS
[Syllabus]
The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
82 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
82 NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE
[Syllabus]
82 PADILLA V. KENTUCKY
[Syllabus]
82 HUDSON V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR
[Syllabus]
Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
82
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. TINKLENBERG
[Syllabus]
82 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
82 SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
82 SORRELL V. IMS HEALTH INC.
[Syllabus]
82 WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).
[Syllabus]
82 KYLLO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Where the Government uses a device, such as a thermal imager, that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
82 UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU
[Syllabus]
Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.
82 CONE V. BELL
[Syllabus]
82 MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. JIMENEZ RECIO
[Syllabus]
A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object.
82 VIRGINIA V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 THORNTON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
82 CASTRO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
82 WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS
[Syllabus]
A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
82 BEGAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC.
[Syllabus]
82 WHITFIELD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82 KENTUCKY V. KING
[Syllabus]
82 MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Syllabus]
82 KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER
[Syllabus]
Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
82 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT. V. UNITED REPORTINGPUBLISHING CORP.
[Syllabus]
Whether the government violates the First Amendment when it releases records but forbids their commercial use?
82 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995).
[Syllabus]
82 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
82 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82
[Syllabus]
82 UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).
[Syllabus]