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 disclosure returned 73 results.

1000 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
[Syllabus]
935 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK
[Syllabus]
935
[Syllabus]
873 DOE V. REED
[Syllabus]
802 BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
[Syllabus]
773 NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMIN. V. FAVISH
[Syllabus]
The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
744 MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY
[Syllabus]
708 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
627 GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONDIST. V.UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON
[Syllabus]
627 KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
[Syllabus]
627 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
627 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
579 SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998)
[Syllabus]
579 ROCKWELL INTL CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
579 559 U. S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
579 AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI
[Syllabus]
California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
517 ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUBS FREEDOMCLUB PAC V.BENNETT
[Syllabus]
517 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?
517 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.
517 DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
446 SORRELL V. IMS HEALTH INC.
[Syllabus]
446 UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR, 515 U.S. 593 (1995).
[Syllabus]
446 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.
446 CHASE BANK USA, N. A. V. MCCOY
[Syllabus]
446 JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
[Syllabus]
352 BARTNICKI V. VOPPER
[Syllabus]
Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
352 HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.
[Syllabus]
Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
352 CONNECTICUT DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY V. DOE
[Syllabus]
The Second Circuit's judgment enjoining the public disclosure provisions of Connecticut's "Megan's Law" must be reversed because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact, here, current dangerousness, that is not material to the State's statutory scheme.
352
[Syllabus]
352 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 117 S.CT. 1871, 138 L.ED.2D 135 (1997).
[Syllabus]
352 FCC V. AT&T INC.
[Syllabus]
352 MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
[Syllabus]
352 UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION
[Syllabus]
352 TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. V. MARKETINGDISPLAYS, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because MDI's dual-spring design mechanism for keeping road signs upright is a functional feature for which there is no trade dress protection, MDI's claim for such protection is barred.
352 ELDRED V. ASHCROFT
[Syllabus]
The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
352 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
352 UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997).
[Syllabus]
352 BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998)
[Syllabus]
223 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE
[Syllabus]
223 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
223 MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC. V. SIRACUSANO
[Syllabus]
223 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
[Syllabus]
223 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
223 RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995).
[Syllabus]
223
[Syllabus]
223 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
223 FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
[Syllabus]
223
[Syllabus]
223 INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
223 SEC V. ZANDFORD
[Syllabus]
Assuming that the allegations in the SEC's complaint are true, respondent's alleged fraudulent conduct-selling his customer's securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer's knowledge or consent-was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's Rule 10b-5.
223 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
223
[Syllabus]
223 GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995).
[Syllabus]
223
[Syllabus]
223 GONZAGA UNIV. V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
223
[Syllabus]
223 OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. I—011V. FALVO
[Syllabus]
Peer grading-where students score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teacher explains the correct answers to the class-does not violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974's prohibition on the release of education records without parental consent.
223 UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998)
[Syllabus]
223 44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996).
[Syllabus]
223 STRICKLER V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
223 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
223
[Syllabus]
223 WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS
[Syllabus]
A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
223 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.
223 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI
[Syllabus]
223 DOE V. CHAO
[Syllabus]
223 JONES V. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L. P.
[Syllabus]
223 COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996)
[Syllabus]
223 ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
223 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA V.PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
[Syllabus]
223 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. V. SCHOONEJONGEN, 514 U.S. 73 (1995).
[Syllabus]
223 UNITED STATES V. RUIZ
[Syllabus]
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
223 CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997)
[Syllabus]