Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

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 61 results.

	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion]
	RANKIN V. MCPHERSON [Opinion]
	MAHER V. ROE [Opinion]
	BEAL V. DOE [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Dissent]
	BEAL V. DOE [Dissent]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	BEAL V. DOE [Dissent]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Dissent]
	BEAL V. DOE [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	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).
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	MAHER V. ROE [Syllabus]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Syllabus]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Opinion]
	IN RE PRIMUS [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	MAHER V. ROE [Dissent]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Opinion]
	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?
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Opinion]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE [Syllabus]
	SUTER V. ARTIST M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). [Syllabus]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	[Syllabus]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	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.
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Opinion]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Syllabus]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	HELVERING V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Opinion]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Syllabus]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent]
	MATHEWS V. LUCAS [Opinion]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	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."
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Opinion]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Opinion]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Opinion]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Opinion]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	IN RE GAULT [Opinion]
	BERMAN V. PARKER [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Dissent]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion]
	HELVERING V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Opinion]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC. [Opinion]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Concurrence]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Opinion]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Syllabus]
	MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	STAPLES V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 600 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concurrence]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG [Opinion]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Dissent]
	BUCHANAN V. WARLEY [Opinion]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Dissent]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Dissent]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Concurrence]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Opinion]
	VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METROPOLITAN [Opinion]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Opinion]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Concurrence]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Dissent]
	HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. CITY OF DETROIT [Opinion]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	BROWN V. HARTLAGE [Opinion]
	KENT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Concurrence]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Opinion]
	IN RE WINSHIP [Opinion]
	BEAL V. DOE [Dissent]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	HEAD MONEY CASES [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER []
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Opinion]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	BUCK V. BELL [Opinion]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	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?
	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.
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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®.
	RENO V. FLORES, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Dissent]
	MINOR V. HAPPERSETT [Opinion]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Dissent]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Dissent]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	******** [Concurrence]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	LAU V. NICHOLS [Concurrence]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Opinion]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Opinion]
	HOYT V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Concurrence]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Opinion]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Dissent]
	HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Dissent]
	A BOOK NAMED "JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE" V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Syllabus]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Opinion]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Dissent]
	IN RE DEBS [Opinion]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Concurrence]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Dissent]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	MATHEWS V. LUCAS [Syllabus]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Opinion]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	STANLEY V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Dissent]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Opinion]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Concurrence]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Opinion]
	HUNT V. WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION [Opinion]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Dissent]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE [Opinion]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Syllabus]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. KLEIN [Syllabus]
	TRUAX V. RAICH [Opinion]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Opinion]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Opinion]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Syllabus]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	POELKER V. DOE [Opinion]
	PALMORE V. SIDOTI [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Dissent]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Opinion]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S 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?
	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.
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996) [Syllabus]
	F.C.C. V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	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.
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	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.
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WEST VIRGINIA UNIV. HOSPITALS, INC. V. CASEY, 499 U.S. 83 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BROOKE GROUP LTD. V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 509 U.S. 209 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	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?
	ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. HOME STATE BANK, 501 U.S. 78 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Dissent]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Concurrence]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	TRIMBLE V. GORDON [Opinion]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL []
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Syllabus]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent]
	BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Opinion]
	ROE V. WADE [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Concurrence]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Opinion]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Dissent]
	SMITH V. GOGUEN [Concurrence]
	THE POCKET VETO CASE [Opinion]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Opinion]
	TAYLOR V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Syllabus]
	******** [Dissent]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Dissent]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concurrence]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Dissent]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Dissent]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Syllabus]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion]
	MARYLAND V. WIRTZ [Opinion]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Opinion]
	IN RE GAULT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Concurrence]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. SALERNO [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. KLEIN [Opinion]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	LOEWE V. LAWLOR [Opinion]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. [Dissent]
	MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Dissent]
	OHIO V. ROBERTS [Opinion]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Dissent]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Concurrence]
	CALDER V. BULL [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	MULFORD V. SMITH [Opinion]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Opinion]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Dissent]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BELMONT [Opinion]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG [Dissent]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KENT V. DULLES [Dissent]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PERRY V. SINDERMANN [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MARSH V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Opinion]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Dissent]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Concurrence]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Opinion]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Syllabus]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Opinion]
	ROE V. WADE [Dissent]
	POWERS V. OHIO [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Dissent]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion]
	******** [Concurrence]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Dissent]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. NELSON [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Concurrence]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Syllabus]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Dissent]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Concurrence]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Dissent]
	OHIO V. ROBERTS [Dissent]
	MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TRIMBLE V. GORDON [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Concurrence]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN []
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Opinion]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Dissent]
	RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS [Dissent]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL [Concurrence]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Concurrence]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Dissent]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Syllabus]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Opinion]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. ROBERTS [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Opinion]
	BOOTH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Syllabus]
	HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY [Opinion]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Concurrence]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Concurrence]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Syllabus]
	MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Opinion]
	MILLER V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Opinion]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Opinion]
	LAU V. NICHOLS [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. PATTERSON [Syllabus]
	WARD V. ROCK AGAINST RACISM [Dissent]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	LAU V. NICHOLS [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Dissent]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concurrence]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Dissent]
	SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion]
	IN RE GAULT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EDWARDS V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Concurrence]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. [Opinion]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Opinion]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Dissent]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER [Opinion]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. [Opinion]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Opinion]
	ZEMEL V. RUSK [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. NELSON [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Dissent]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS [Opinion]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Dissent]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Concurrence]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	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).
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	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?
	SUTER V. ARTIST M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	ANDERSON V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 143 (1995). [Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	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."
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	STAPLES V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 600 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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.
	RENO V. FLORES, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	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?
	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®.
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	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.
	COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S 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?
	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.
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996) [Syllabus]
	F.C.C. V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	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.
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WEST VIRGINIA UNIV. HOSPITALS, INC. V. CASEY, 499 U.S. 83 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BROOKE GROUP LTD. V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 509 U.S. 209 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	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?
	ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. HOME STATE BANK, 501 U.S. 78 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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.