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 AFDC or sis or welfare or medicaid or food and stamps?

Your query afdc or ssi or welfare or medicaid or (food and stamps) returned 66 results.

1000 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Opinion]
922 MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE
[Opinion]
874 BOWEN V. ROY
[Opinion]
705 MAHER V. ROE
[Opinion]
679 BEAL V. DOE
[Opinion]
679 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Dissent]
669 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
629 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Dissent]
621 SAENZ V. ROE
[Dissent]
610 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
600 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Opinion]
584 GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE
[Opinion]
584 SAENZ V. ROE
[Opinion]
581 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Opinion]
576 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
571 GOLDBERG V. KELLY
[Opinion]
561 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?
545 PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN
[Opinion]
524 BOWEN V. ROY
[Concurrence]
497 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Opinion]
497 UNITED STATES V. BUTLER
[Opinion]
497 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Dissent]
497 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
479 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Concurrence]
463 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
462 RANKIN V. MCPHERSON
[Opinion]
455 GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE
[Syllabus]
455 BOWEN V. ROY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
455 BOWEN V. ROY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
434 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Dissent]
434 CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB
[Opinion]
433 PLYLER V. DOE
[Dissent]
423 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
423 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Dissent]
412 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
399 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVS.V. BLUMER
[Syllabus]
The Wisconsin Medicaid statute's "income-first" prescription requiring that potential income transfers from an institutionalized spouse to her spouse living at home be considered in determining whether to increase the latter's "Community Spouse Resource Allowance" is a permissible interpretation of the federal Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.
399
[Syllabus]
399 GOLDBERG V. KELLY
[Dissent]
399 BEAL V. DOE
[Syllabus]
399 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY
[Dissent]
399 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
384 UNITED STATES V. BUTLER
[Dissent]
384 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
384 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
370 ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY
[Syllabus]
370 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Opinion]
370 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Opinion]
368 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER
[Syllabus]
Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
368 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
352 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Opinion]
352 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Opinion]
352 ALLEN V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
352 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
351 MAHER V. ROE
[Syllabus]
333 INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997)
[Syllabus]
333 UNITED STATES V. BUTLER
[Syllabus]
333 NEAR V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
333 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
333 WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH
[Opinion]
333 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Syllabus]
333 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING)
[Dissent]
318 BOWEN V. ROY
[Syllabus]
312 SANTOSKY V. KRAMER
[Opinion]
312 MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE
[Syllabus]
312 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Dissent]
312 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
312 SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ
[Opinion]
312 FUENTES V. SHEVIN
[Opinion]
312 MATHEWS V. LUCAS
[Opinion]
312 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
312 HELVERING V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
312 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
312 HOLDEN V. HARDY
[Opinion]
312 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
312 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
288 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
288 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
288 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
288 PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY
[Opinion]
288 ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS
[Opinion]
288 PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Dissent]
288 BERMAN V. PARKER
[Opinion]
288 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Opinion]
288 ALLEN V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
288 BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH
[Opinion]
288 CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH
[Opinion]
288 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
288 VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO.
[Opinion]
288 IN RE GAULT
[Opinion]
288 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY
[Opinion]
288 A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
288 HELVERING V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
288 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
286 MAHER V. ROE
[Dissent]
286 IN RE PRIMUS
[Opinion]
286 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
286 BOWEN V. ROY
[Concurrence]
286 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Opinion]
257 GITLOW V. PEOPLE
[Opinion]
257 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
257 UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ
[Opinion]
257 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
257 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
257 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Syllabus]
257 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Opinion]
257 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
257 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
257 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Concurrence]
257 NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
[Dissent]
257 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
257 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
257 GOLDBERG V. KELLY
[Syllabus]
257 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
257 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Concurrence]
257 BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC.
[Opinion]
257 HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL
[Opinion]
257 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Concurrence]
257 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Opinion]
257 THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
[Dissent]
243 MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
222
[Syllabus]
222
[Syllabus]
222 STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
222 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
222 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[]
222 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concurrence]
222 BROWN V. HARTLAGE
[Opinion]
222 PLYLER V. DOE
[Opinion]
222 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Concurrence]
222 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
222 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Dissent]
222 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
222 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Dissent]
222 STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
222 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
222 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Dissent]
222 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
222 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
222 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Opinion]
222 SANTOSKY V. KRAMER
[Dissent]
222 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Dissent]
222 PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE
[Dissent]
222 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Concurrence]
222 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Opinion]
222 ADAIR V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
222 BUCK V. BELL
[Opinion]
222 VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METROPOLITAN
[Opinion]
222 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
222 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Opinion]
222 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
222 MARYLAND V. CRAIG
[Opinion]
222 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Opinion]
222 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
222 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
222 LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
[Dissent]
222 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
222 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
222 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Opinion]
222 HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG
[Opinion]
222 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Dissent]
222 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
222 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Opinion]
222 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Concurrence]
222 HEAD MONEY CASES
[Opinion]
222 NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
222 IN RE WINSHIP
[Opinion]
222 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT
[Opinion]
222 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Dissent]
222 KENT V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
222 PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Opinion]
222 CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT
[Opinion]
222 BUCHANAN V. WARLEY
[Opinion]
222 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
222 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
222 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY
[Opinion]
222 HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. CITY OF DETROIT
[Opinion]
222 ORR V. ORR
[Dissent]
222 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Opinion]
175 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
175 BARNHART V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
175 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
175 FREW V. HAWKINS
[Syllabus]
This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
175
[Syllabus]
175
[Syllabus]
175 SABRI V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
175 BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD
[Syllabus]
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
175 MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
[Syllabus]
175
[Syllabus]
175 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
175 SAENZ V. ROE
[Syllabus]
175 ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY
[Syllabus]
The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
175 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Dissent]
175 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
175 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Opinion]
175 UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY
[Dissent]
175 MARYLAND V. CRAIG
[Syllabus]
175 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE
[Opinion]
175 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
175 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Opinion]
175 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Dissent]
175 HOYT V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
175 ALLEN V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
175 STANLEY V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
175 MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA
[Opinion]
175 GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
[Opinion]
175 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Opinion]
175 WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
175 GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
[Dissent]
175 POELKER V. DOE
[Opinion]
175 PLYLER V. DOE
[Concurrence]
175 SAENZ V. ROE
[Syllabus]
175 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Opinion]
175 DOE V. BOLTON
[Opinion]
175 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Syllabus]
175 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
175 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Opinion]
175 ADAIR V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
175 YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC.
[Dissent]
175 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Opinion]
175 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Opinion]
175 HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER
[Dissent]
175 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Opinion]
175 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Opinion]
175 A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
175 MATHEWS V. LUCAS
[Syllabus]
175 GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
175 THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
[Opinion]
175 LAU V. NICHOLS
[Concurrence]
175 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
175 HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA
[Opinion]
175 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Dissent]
175 WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
[Dissent]
175 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Dissent]
175 CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB
[Dissent]
175 TRUAX V. RAICH
[Opinion]
175 A BOOK NAMED 'JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE' V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Dissent]
175 YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC.
[Concurrence]
175 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Dissent]
175 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Concurrence]
175 MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN
[Opinion]
175 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Concurrence]
175 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
175 FREEMAN V. PITTS
[Opinion]
175 PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY
[Dissent]
175 HUNT V. WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION
[Opinion]
175 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Dissent]
175 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Syllabus]
175 SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES
[Dissent]
175 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Syllabus]
175 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Dissent]
175 UNITED STATES V. KLEIN
[Syllabus]
175 ********
[Concurrence]
175 STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[Opinion]
175 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
175 PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN
[Dissent]
175 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD
[Dissent]
175 IN RE DEBS
[Opinion]
175 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
175 HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL
[Dissent]
175 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Dissent]
175 GITLOW V. PEOPLE
[Syllabus]
175 ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
[Opinion]
175 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Opinion]
175 CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE
[Opinion]
175 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Dissent]
175 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
175 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Opinion]
175 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Opinion]
175 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Opinion]
175 PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY
[Syllabus]
175 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Dissent]
175 MINOR V. HAPPERSETT
[Opinion]
175 PALMORE V. SIDOTI
[Opinion]
175 ROMER V. EVANS
[Opinion]
175 BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
175 ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS
[Dissent]
175 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
165 MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD
[Syllabus]
111 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
[Syllabus]
Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
111 ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998)
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
111 UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).
[Syllabus]
111 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
111 SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.
[Syllabus]
111 CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997)
[Syllabus]
111 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
111 EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998)
[Syllabus]
111 ERIE V. PAPS A. M.
[Syllabus]
Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
111
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
[Syllabus]
When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
111 RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995).
[Syllabus]
111 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
[Syllabus]
111 ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
[Syllabus]
111 LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996).
[Syllabus]
111 ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO.
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 TURNER V. ROGERS
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
[Syllabus]
111 RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN
[Syllabus]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
111 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]
111 COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
111 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
111 RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON
[Syllabus]
Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
111 AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
111
[Syllabus]
111 CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS
[Syllabus]
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
111 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMMN
[Syllabus]
111 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Concurrence]
111 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
111 CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 WASHINGTON V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
111 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Dissent]
111 LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Opinion]
111 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
111 LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER
[Opinion]
111 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART
[Opinion]
111 SMITH V. GOGUEN
[Concurrence]
111 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
111 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Concurrence]
111 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Concurrence]
111 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Concurrence]
111 TRIMBLE V. GORDON
[Dissent]
111 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE
[Dissent]
111 IN RE GAULT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Dissent]
111 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Dissent]
111 WELSH V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
111 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Dissent]
111 LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
[Opinion]
111 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
111 STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
111 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
111 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
111 STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. DARBY
[Syllabus]
111 ********
[Dissent]
111 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
[Opinion]
111 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Concurrence]
111 WHALEN V. ROE
[Concurrence]
111 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Syllabus]
111 COHENS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
111 THE POCKET VETO CASE
[Opinion]
111 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Dissent]
111 STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[Dissent]
111 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY
[Opinion]
111 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
111 MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO
[Opinion]
111 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[]
111 EDWARDS V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Dissent]
111 TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON
[Dissent]
111 MUNN V. ILLINOIS
[Opinion]
111 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Concurrence]
111 HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY
[Opinion]
111 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
111 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[]
111 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concurrence]
111 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
111 ********
[Concurrence]
111 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
111 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Dissent]
111 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
111 MULLER V. OREGON
[Opinion]
111 HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF
[Opinion]
111 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Dissent]
111 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 NEAR V. MINNESOTA
[Dissent]
111 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Opinion]
111 PATTON V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
111 MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE
[Dissent]
111 SANTOSKY V. KRAMER
[Syllabus]
111 FREEMAN V. PITTS
[Concurrence]
111 MORGAN V. VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. BROWN
[Dissent]
111 VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO.
[Syllabus]
111 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Concurrence]
111 BOOTH V. MARYLAND
[Opinion]
111 JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
[Dissent]
111 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 PENNSYLVANIA V. NELSON
[Opinion]
111 PEREZ V. BROWNELL
[Dissent]
111 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Opinion]
111 SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Opinion]
111 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Dissent]
111 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
111 KENT V. DULLES
[Dissent]
111 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS
[Dissent]
111 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Opinion]
111 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Syllabus]
111 MARYLAND V. WIRTZ
[Opinion]
111 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Dissent]
111 MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Dissent]
111 SAENZ V. ROE
[Dissent]
111 OHIO V. ROBERTS
[Dissent]
111 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
[Dissent]
111 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 UNITED STATES V. BROWN
[Opinion]
111 MILLER V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
111 CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
111 POWERS V. OHIO
[Dissent]
111 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Dissent]
111 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH
[Concurrence]
111 LAU V. NICHOLS
[Opinion]
111 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Opinion]
111 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO.
[Opinion]
111 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
111 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Concurrence]
111 UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ
[Dissent]
111 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Concurrence]
111 PERRY V. SINDERMANN
[Opinion]
111 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA
[Dissent]
111 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
111 MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO.
[Concurrence]
111 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
111 LAU V. NICHOLS
[Syllabus]
111 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Dissent]
111 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Dissent]
111 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT
[Opinion]
111 UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK
[Opinion]
111 REYNOLDS V. SIMS
[Dissent]
111 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Opinion]
111 WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH
[Syllabus]
111 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Syllabus]
111 GIBBONS V. OGDEN
[Opinion]
111 UNITED STATES V. SALERNO
[Opinion]
111 TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON
[Dissent]
111 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Opinion]
111 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
111 MAXWELL V. DOW
[Dissent]
111 MULFORD V. SMITH
[Opinion]
111 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Opinion]
111 PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION
[Opinion]
111 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Concurrence]
111 BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Opinion]
111 STANFORD V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
111 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Syllabus]
111 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 PENNSYLVANIA V. NELSON
[Dissent]
111 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 TRIMBLE V. GORDON
[Opinion]
111 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
111 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
111 MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Dissent]
111 BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
111 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Dissent]
111 TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON
[Opinion]
111 SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
111 MAXWELL V. DOW
[Opinion]
111 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
111 ROMER V. EVANS
[Syllabus]
111 CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR
[Concurrence]
111 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Syllabus]
111 LOEWE V. LAWLOR
[Opinion]
111 CALDER V. BULL
[Opinion]
111 MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND
[Opinion]
111 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Dissent]
111 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
111 PLYLER V. DOE
[Concurrence]
111 WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
[Concurrence]
111 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
111 CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
111 STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[Syllabus]
111 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Syllabus]
111 ROE V. WADE
[Dissent]
111 CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO.
[Dissent]
111 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Syllabus]
111 SHELTON V. TUCKER
[Opinion]
111 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Dissent]
111 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY
[Opinion]
111 WARD V. ROCK AGAINST RACISM
[Dissent]
111 MARSH V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
111 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Opinion]
111 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Concurrence]
111 BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. LOVETT
[Concurrence]
111 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Syllabus]
111 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
111 CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
[Dissent]
111 JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
[Concurrence]
111 NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
111 OHIO V. ROBERTS
[Syllabus]
111 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
[Opinion]
111 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
111 JOHNSON V. ROBISON
[Opinion]
111 OHIO V. ROBERTS
[Opinion]
111 PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS
[Opinion]
111 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Syllabus]
111 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Dissent]
111 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Concurrence]
111 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
111 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE
[Opinion]
111 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
111 NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
[Dissent]
111 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
111 PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 UNITED STATES V. DARBY
[Opinion]
111 WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
[Opinion]
111 MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO.
[Dissent]
111 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
111 NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
111 KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
[Opinion]
111 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
111 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Opinion]
111 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Syllabus]
111 ADAIR V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
111 HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS
[Dissent]
111 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 ROE V. WADE
[Opinion]
111 WHALEN V. ROE
[Opinion]
111 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. FORDICE
[Opinion]
111 SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR
[Dissent]
111 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Dissent]
111 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Dissent]
111 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
111 MARYLAND V. CRAIG
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. BELMONT
[Opinion]
111 UNITED STATES V. LOVETT
[Opinion]
111 ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
111 BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
111 TAYLOR V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
111 BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY
[Opinion]
111 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Opinion]
111 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Dissent]
111 ZEMEL V. RUSK
[Opinion]
111 CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS
[Opinion]
111 HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL
[Syllabus]
111 CLINTON V. JONES
[Opinion]
111 IN RE GAULT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
111 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Opinion]
111 ZORACH V. CLAUSON
[Dissent]
111 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. KLEIN
[Opinion]
111 UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO.
[Opinion]
111 CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB
[Concurrence]
111 MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS
[Dissent]
111 PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
[Dissent]
111 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Dissent]
1000 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?
710
[Syllabus]
710 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVS.V. BLUMER
[Syllabus]
The Wisconsin Medicaid statute's "income-first" prescription requiring that potential income transfers from an institutionalized spouse to her spouse living at home be considered in determining whether to increase the latter's "Community Spouse Resource Allowance" is a permissible interpretation of the federal Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.
659 ANDERSON V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 143 (1995).
[Syllabus]
659 ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY
[Syllabus]
656 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER
[Syllabus]
Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
624 SAENZ V. ROE
[Syllabus]
593 INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997)
[Syllabus]
512 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
512 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
512 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
458 SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990)
[Syllabus]
395
[Syllabus]
395 STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
395
[Syllabus]
312
[Syllabus]
312 SABRI V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
312 BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD
[Syllabus]
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
312 MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
[Syllabus]
312
[Syllabus]
312 ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY
[Syllabus]
The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
312 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
312 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
312 BARNHART V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
312 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
312 FREW V. HAWKINS
[Syllabus]
This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
312
[Syllabus]
197 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197 FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
[Syllabus]
Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
197 ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998)
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
197 UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).
[Syllabus]
197 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
197 SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.
[Syllabus]
197 CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997)
[Syllabus]
197 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
197 EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998)
[Syllabus]
197 ERIE V. PAPS A. M.
[Syllabus]
Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
197
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197 GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
[Syllabus]
When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
197 RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995).
[Syllabus]
197 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
[Syllabus]
197 ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
[Syllabus]
197 LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996).
[Syllabus]
197 ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO.
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197 TURNER V. ROGERS
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197 UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
[Syllabus]
197 RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN
[Syllabus]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
197 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]
197 COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
197 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
197 RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON
[Syllabus]
Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
197
[Syllabus]
197 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD
[Syllabus]
197 AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
197
[Syllabus]
197 CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS
[Syllabus]
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
197 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMMN
[Syllabus]