Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query drug not tobacco not alcohol returned 133 results.

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

	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS [Syllabus] Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	POSTERS `N' THINGS, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 513 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 223 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. [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?
	LOPEZ V. DAVIS [Syllabus] Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) [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.
	GOZLON-PERETZ V. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 395 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. 92 BUENA VISTA AVE., 507 U.S. 111 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABISBUYERS’ COOPERATIVE [Syllabus] There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
	CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FELIX, 503 U.S. 378 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GRANDERSON, 511 U.S. 39 (1994). [Syllabus]
	RAYTHEON CO. V. HERNANDEZ [Syllabus] Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
	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.
	HARTFORD FIRE INS. V. CALIFORNIA, 509 U.S. 764 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BUFORD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TOUBY V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RIGGINS V. NEVADA, 504 U.S. 127 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	OHLER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a ruling granting the government's in limine motion to introduce evidence of her prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if she attempts to "" remove the sting"" of the conviction by introducing the conviction while testifying on direct examination?"
	NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	AUSTIN V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BELL V. CONE [Syllabus] Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	UNITED STATES V. DIXON, 509 U.S. 688 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WYOMING V. HOUGHTON [Syllabus]
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ [Syllabus] Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL COMM. [Syllabus] Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
	RICE V. COLLINS [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	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?
	HUDSON V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU [Syllabus] Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.
	ALBRIGHT V. OLIVER, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON [Syllabus] Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
	COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER [Syllabus] Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
	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.
	WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 594 (1994). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 504 U.S. 655 (1992). [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER [Syllabus] Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
	PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. [Syllabus]
	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?
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. HICKS [Syllabus] 1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
	UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS [Syllabus] The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
	INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND [Syllabus] Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
	CASTRO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
	MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Because the judgment below was not "[f]inal" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
	CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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."
	FOUCHA V. LOUISIANA, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WHITFIELD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR [Syllabus] Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
	BOND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
	[Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. JIMENO, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	THORNTON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
	ZAFIRO V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 534 (1993). [Syllabus]
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO [Syllabus] Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
	UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FELLERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
	KNOWLES V. IOWA [Syllabus]
	KYLLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Where the Government uses a device, such as a thermal imager, that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
	GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EDGE BROADCASTING, 509 U.S. 418 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF MONT. V. KURTH RANCH, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). [Syllabus]
	NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 738 (1994). [Syllabus]
	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [Syllabus]
	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.
	CLAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
	CUSTIS V. UNITED STATES, 114 S. CT. 1732, 128 L. ED. 2D 517 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]