skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

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

Your query civil and rights returned 177 results.

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

1000 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Dissent]
905 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Opinion]
772 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Syllabus]
630 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Opinion]
494 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
494 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
438 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.
1000 LOGAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
757 MV. CHICAGO
[Syllabus]
680
[Syllabus]
568 M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
546 WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.
[Syllabus]
546 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.
546 ABBOTT V. ABBOTT
[Syllabus]
515 ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL
[Syllabus]
There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
515 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
490 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
490 BECKER V. MONTGOMERY
[Syllabus]
When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
478
[Syllabus]
478 TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD.
[Syllabus]
468 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.
468 CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C.
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
462 COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. AVIALL SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
447 C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS
[Syllabus]
Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
447 SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P. A.V. ALLSTATE INS. CO.
[Syllabus]
447 KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)
[Syllabus]
428
[Syllabus]
428 LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996).
[Syllabus]
428 CARON V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 308 (1998)
[Syllabus]
428
[Syllabus]
428 POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
[Syllabus]
Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
428
[Syllabus]
416 UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).
[Syllabus]
406 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
406 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
385 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
385 O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995).
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385 14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
381 SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
381 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
381 KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN.
[Syllabus]
381 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI
[Syllabus]
381 CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES
[Syllabus]
381
[Syllabus]
381 ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP.
[Syllabus]
381 DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA
[Syllabus]
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
381 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
381
[Syllabus]
381 JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED.
[Syllabus]
354 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
354 CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
354 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OFAMERICA V. WHITING
[Syllabus]
354 GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
354 TENNESSEE V. LANE
[Syllabus]
Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
354 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR
[Syllabus]
354 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
354
[Syllabus]
354 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK
[Syllabus]
354
[Syllabus]
338
[Syllabus]
338 GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998)
[Syllabus]
338 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?
338
[Syllabus]
338 EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE
[Syllabus]
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
338
[Syllabus]
338
[Syllabus]
338 NEVADA V. HICKS
[Syllabus]
A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
338 PERDUE V. KENNY A.
[Syllabus]
338 MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC.
[Syllabus]
338 FOX V. VICE
[Syllabus]
338 MORRISON V. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD.
[Syllabus]
319 SCARBOROUGH V. PRINCIPI
[Syllabus]
Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
319 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER
[Syllabus]
319 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
319 COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996).
[Syllabus]
319 FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM.
[Syllabus]
319 ZADVYDAS V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, implicitly limits an alien's detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention; the application of that limitation is subject to federal court review.
319
[Syllabus]
319 NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS
[Syllabus]
Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
319 BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998)
[Syllabus]
276 ALVAREZ V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
276 DEVLIN V. SCARDELLETTI
[Syllabus]
Nonnamed class members who have objected in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening in the lawsuit.
276 SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON
[Syllabus]
276
[Syllabus]
276 WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES
[Syllabus]
276 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN.
[Syllabus]
Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
276 INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
276 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
276 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
276
[Syllabus]
276 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
276 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK V. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
[Syllabus]
A corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a "citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state" for purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(2).
276 AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA
[Syllabus]
Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
276
[Syllabus]
276 UNITED STATES V. COTTON
[Syllabus]
A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
276 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998)
[Syllabus]
276 CONN V. GABBERT
[Syllabus]
276
[Syllabus]
276 RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998)
[Syllabus]
276 CAMRETA V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
276
[Syllabus]
276 HOPE V. PELZER
[Syllabus]
Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
276
[Syllabus]
276 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
276 JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
276 THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP
[Syllabus]
276 GRATZ V. BOLLINGER
[Syllabus]
1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
276 REED ELSEVIER, INC. V. MUCHNICK
[Syllabus]
276
[Syllabus]
276 YSURSA V. POCATELLO ED. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
276 JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO.
[Syllabus]
Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
276 UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. V. ESPINOSA
[Syllabus]
276
[Syllabus]
276 HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 654 (1996).
[Syllabus]
276 ORTIZ V. JORDAN
[Syllabus]
276 TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 296 (1998)
[Syllabus]
276
[Syllabus]
214 PGA TOUR, INC. V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits petitioner from denying golfer Casey Martin equal access to its golf tours on the basis of a disability that prevents him from walking a golf course; allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite petitioner's walking requirement, is not a modification that would "fundamentally alter the nature" of petitioner's tours.
214
[Syllabus]
214 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N. A.
[Syllabus]
A complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, but instead must contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
214 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS
[Syllabus]
When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
214 WEST V. GIBSON
[Syllabus]
214 BREUER V. JIMS CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
214 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 RICCI V. DESTEFANO
[Syllabus]
214 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 ORFF V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 BURLINGTON N. & S. F.R.CO. V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 WALTERS V. METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 U.S. 202 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214 GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER
[Syllabus]
1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
214 CRAWFORD V. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OFNASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON CTY.
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
214 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN
[Syllabus]
A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
214 AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN
[Syllabus]
214 RICE V. CAYETANO
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
214 WOODFORD V. NGO
[Syllabus]
214 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES V. PIMENTEL
[Syllabus]
214 RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO.
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
214 GOMEZ-PEREZ V. POTTER
[Syllabus]
214 LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA
[Syllabus]
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
214
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214 GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. V. SEB S.A.
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
[Syllabus]
An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
214 ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON
[Syllabus]
Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 ROBINSON V. SHELL OIL CO., 519 U.S. 337 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214 NELSON V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
214 BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 HUDSON V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
214 CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 UNITED STATES V. LARA
[Syllabus]
Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
214 MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 ASTRUE V. RATLIFF
[Syllabus]
214 558 U.S. ____ (2009)
[Syllabus]
214 RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. V. CHERTOFF
[Syllabus]
214 BARNES V. GORMAN
[Syllabus]
Punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under §202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
214 LEWIS V. CHICAGO
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. CITY OFNEW YORK
[Syllabus]
214 SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995).
[Syllabus]