Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query child OR adoption returned 117 results.

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

	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Opinion]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Opinion]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	MINOR V. HAPPERSETT [Opinion]
	COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS [Dissent]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Dissent]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON [Opinion]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Dissent]
	REID V. COVERT [Opinion]
	KENDALL V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Opinion]
	KENDALL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Dissent]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KENDALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	TWINING V. STATE [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AFROYIM V. RUSK [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC. [Opinion]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MINOR V. HAPPERSETT [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Opinion]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Dissent]
	TWINING V. STATE [Opinion]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Opinion]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., INC. [Opinion]
	STEARNS V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Opinion]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	IN RE WINSHIP [Dissent]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	SHELLEY V. KRAEMER [Opinion]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Concurrence]
	ROE V. WADE [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Dissent]
	******** [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	THE POCKET VETO CASE [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Syllabus]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	******** [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	ROE V. WADE [Dissent]
	KENDALL V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Concurrence]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	******** [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	BUCHANAN V. WARLEY [Opinion]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WESBERRY V. SANDERS [Opinion]
	A BOOK NAMED "JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE" V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Opinion]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Dissent]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Opinion]
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SUTER V. ARTIST M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Opinion]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Concurrence]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KATZENBACH V. MORGAN [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Concurrence]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AFROYIM V. RUSK [Opinion]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Opinion]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Opinion]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion]
	CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE [Concurrence]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent]
	SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES [Opinion]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Dissent]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Opinion]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Opinion]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Opinion]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Opinion]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Opinion]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Opinion]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Dissent]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Dissent]
	******** [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Dissent]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Dissent]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	MARYLAND V. WIRTZ [Opinion]
	MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Opinion]
	MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT [Opinion]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Opinion]
	WILSON V. NEW [Dissent]
	GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO. [Opinion]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	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?
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	BROWN V. GARDNER, 115 S. CT. 552, 130 L. ED. 2D 462 (1994). [Syllabus]
	RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [Syllabus]
	COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER [Syllabus] Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
	NORTH STAR STEEL CO. V. THOMAS, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROTELLA V. WOOD [Syllabus] In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LOCKHART V. FRETWELL, 506 U.S. 364 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN [Syllabus] Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KELO V. NEW LONDON [Syllabus]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [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.
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	SHANNON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. KATO [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. [Syllabus] 1. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with five state courts of last resort, that an automobile manufacturer's compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard that permits, but does not require, installation of airbags in passenger vehicles preempts state common law claims that an automobile was defectively designed because it lacked an airbag? 2. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred by holding that, because this Court engaged in implied preemption analysis in Freightliner Corp. V. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995), the lower courts are free to disregard the limitations on implied preemption most recently emphasized in Cipollone V. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), to find that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1431, impliedly preempts common law claims, even thought the Act expressly provides that ""compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard … does not exempt any person from any liability under common law''?
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DELAWARE V. NEW YORK, 507 U.S. 490 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. R. L. C., 503 U.S. 291 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN [Syllabus] Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
	ENGINE MFRS. ASSN. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DIST. [Syllabus] Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
	SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP. V. EASTERWOOD, 507 U.S. 658 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent]
	COYLE V. SMITH [Opinion]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Dissent]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concurrence]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Concurrence]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Syllabus]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	POWERS V. OHIO [Opinion]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Opinion]
	DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Concurrence]
	POWELL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	SCHNEIDER V. RUSK [Dissent]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Dissent]
	SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC. [Syllabus]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY [Dissent]
	NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Concurrence]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Opinion]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Opinion]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Dissent]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concurrence]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Opinion]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Dissent]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Opinion]
	IN RE DEBS [Opinion]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Concurrence]
	TERRY V. OHIO [Dissent]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA [Opinion]
	ROTH V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Opinion]
	BOOS V. BARRY [Opinion]
	KATZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Opinion]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Concurrence]
	SMITH V. GOGUEN [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	TROP V. DULLES [Dissent]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Opinion]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Opinion]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Dissent]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LOVING V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	CONNICK V. MYERS [Dissent]
	SCHICK V. REED [Opinion]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	******** [Opinion]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	******** [Syllabus]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	CONNICK V. MYERS [Opinion]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Opinion]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Opinion]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Syllabus]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Syllabus]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Concurrence]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Dissent]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Concurrence]
	PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD [Opinion]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Dissent]
	MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concurrence]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS [Opinion]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	TALBOT V. JANSON [Syllabus]
	GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Concurrence]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Opinion]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Syllabus]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Opinion]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Opinion]
	KIRKPATRICK V. PREISLER [Opinion]
	TERRY V. ADAMS [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Concurrence]
	MARYLAND V. WIRTZ [Syllabus]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Opinion]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Dissent]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Dissent]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Opinion]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Concurrence]
	TRIMBLE V. GORDON [Dissent]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. ROSS [Opinion]
	NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART [Concurrence]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Dissent]
	******** [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion]
	IN RE WINSHIP [Concurrence]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Dissent]
	NIX V. WHITESIDE [Concurrence]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS V. GATES [Dissent]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Dissent]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent]
	BOARD OF ESTIMATE OF CITY OF NEW YORK V. MORRIS [Opinion]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Dissent]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Concurrence]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. [Opinion]
	GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO. [Syllabus]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Syllabus]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	MILLER V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Opinion]
	KENTUCKY V. DENNISON [Opinion]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	WESBERRY V. SANDERS [Dissent]
	ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN [Concurrence]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Opinion]
	DEAN MILK CO. V. CITY OF MADISON [Opinion]
	IN RE GAULT [Opinion]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Concurrence]
	JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA [Concurrence]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Syllabus]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Dissent]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Opinion]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Syllabus]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Dissent]
	ASHE V. SWENSON [Concurrence]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA [Concurrence]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Dissent]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Concurrence]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Opinion]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Opinion]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Concurrence]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Opinion]
	FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1784 V. STOTTS [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Syllabus]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Concurrence]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Dissent]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Concurrence]
	FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concurrence]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Opinion]
	GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	CHAMBERS V. MARONEY [Opinion]
	CRAIG V. BOREN [Opinion]
	IN RE WINSHIP [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. GUEST [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Opinion]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Opinion]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Opinion]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Concurrence]
	EX PARTE BAKELITE CORPORATION [Opinion]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REID V. COVERT [Concurrence]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Syllabus]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS [Dissent]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. GUEST [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	******** [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	SUTER V. ARTIST M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). [Syllabus]
	TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. WRIGHT, 497 U.S. 805 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	FLORENCE COUNTY SCH. DIST. FOUR V. CARTER, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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?
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Syllabus] 1. Does Revised Code of Washington 26.10.160(3) and the former RCW26.09.240 granting third parties, including grandparents, the right to petition for visitation rights with a minor child if the visitation is ""in the best interests of the child"" impermissibly interfere with a parent's fundamental interest in the ""care custody and companionship of a child"" as defined by the liberty and privacy provisions of the United States Constitution? 2. Did the Supreme Court of Washington err in Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), in holding that RCW 26. 10. 160(3) and the former RCW 26.09.240 are unconstitutional based upon the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment and the fundamental right to privacy inherent in the United States Constitution when it used the flawed premise that a parent's fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions is unassailable and that the state's parents patriae power to act in a child's welfare may not be invoked absent a finding of harm to the child or parental unfitness?
	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).
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	JACOBSON V. UNITED STATES, 503 U.S. 540 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ANDERSON V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 143 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	J.E.B. V. ALABAMA EX REL. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WHORTON V. BOCKTING [Syllabus]
	ANKENBRANDT V. RICHARDS, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SCHAFFER V. WEAST [Syllabus]
	THINGS REMEMBERED, INC. V. PETRARCA, 516 U.S. 124 (1995). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. FLORES, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). [Syllabus]
	TEXAS V. COBB [Syllabus] Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
	[Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	POWELL V. NEVADA, 511 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	STOGNER V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] 1. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations requirement, which historically comprised an element of the crimes charged, so as to charge Petitioner retroactively, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? 2. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the Statute of limitations arbitrarily retract a liberty interest the state had conferred on Petitioner?
	KELO V. NEW LONDON [Syllabus]
	KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) [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.
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	PAYNE V. TENNESSEE, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F. [Syllabus]
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER [Syllabus] Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
	SHALALA V. WHITECOTTON, 514 U.S. 268 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	SHANNON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] The Child Online Protection Act's reliance on "community standards" to identify what World Wide Web material "is harmful to minors" does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes.
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. KATO [Syllabus]
	LAWRENCE V. TEXAS [Syllabus] 1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
	[Syllabus]
	RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BROWN V. GARDNER, 115 S. CT. 552, 130 L. ED. 2D 462 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. R. L. C., 503 U.S. 291 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENTGROUP, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post- judgment motions under Rule 59 (e) and 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motion were pending.
	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?
	DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN [Syllabus] Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. [Syllabus] 1. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with five state courts of last resort, that an automobile manufacturer's compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard that permits, but does not require, installation of airbags in passenger vehicles preempts state common law claims that an automobile was defectively designed because it lacked an airbag? 2. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred by holding that, because this Court engaged in implied preemption analysis in Freightliner Corp. V. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995), the lower courts are free to disregard the limitations on implied preemption most recently emphasized in Cipollone V. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), to find that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1431, impliedly preempts common law claims, even thought the Act expressly provides that ""compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard … does not exempt any person from any liability under common law''?
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	DELAWARE V. NEW YORK, 507 U.S. 490 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PENRY V. JOHNSON [Syllabus] The jury instructions at Penry's resentencing for capital murder did not comply with the Court's mandate in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302; the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NORTH STAR STEEL CO. V. THOMAS, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROTELLA V. WOOD [Syllabus] In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LOCKHART V. FRETWELL, 506 U.S. 364 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP. V. EASTERWOOD, 507 U.S. 658 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ENGINE MFRS. ASSN. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DIST. [Syllabus] Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
	REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN [Syllabus] Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]