Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query due and process returned 206 results.

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

	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MV. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC. [Syllabus] Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	ROGERS V. TENNESSEE [Syllabus] The Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to petitioner of its decision abolishing the common law " year and a day rule" did not deny petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CAPERTON V. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO. [Syllabus]
	RIVERA V. ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	TURNER V. ROGERS [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
	DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE [Syllabus]
	SKILLING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. V. ESPINOSA [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]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). [Syllabus]
	COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	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?
	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?
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION [Syllabus] Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
	LEE V. KEMNA [Syllabus] Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DEMORE V. KIM [Syllabus] Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	J. MV. NICASTRO [Syllabus]
	PORTUONDO V. AGARD [Syllabus] Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 509 (1965)-- which prohibited a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's right to remain silent-- to a prosecutor's comment on a testifying defendant's presence in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses?
	POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. CITY OF VALDEZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-SALAZAR [Syllabus] Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	TAYLOR V. STURGELL [Syllabus]
	SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA [Syllabus] Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
	[Syllabus]
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WEST COVINA V. PERKINS [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. SWITZER [Syllabus]
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	SELING V. YOUNG [Syllabus] In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute: Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment."
	BRACY V. GRAMLEY, WARDEN, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. LEATHERMANTOOL GROUP, INC. [Syllabus] Courts of Appeals should apply a de novo, not an abuse-of-discretion, standard when reviewing district court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	BERGHUIS V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. FRENCH [Syllabus] The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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.
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH [Syllabus]
	WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BENNIS V. MICHIGAN, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALVAREZ V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DECK V. MISSOURI [Syllabus]
	TENET V. DOE [Syllabus]
	LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) [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.
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FRY V. PLILER [Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	VAN V. GOLDSTEIN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P. A.V. ALLSTATE INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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?
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC [Syllabus] The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HAMDI V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus] Did the court of appeals erred in holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to be an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan?
	PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND [Syllabus] Petitioner's claim that Rhode Island's application of its wetlands regulations took his property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause is ripe for review and is not barred by his acquisition of title after the regulations' effective date; however, he failed to establish a deprivation of all economic use, for the parcel retains significant development value.
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. CRANE [Syllabus] Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, set forth no requirement that a dangerous sexual offender have a total or complete lack of control to civilly commit him, but the Constitution does not permit such commitment without any lack-of-control determination.
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC. V. FLOR-IDA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	[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.
	SHAW V. MURPHY [Syllabus] Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
	561 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S. A.V.BROWN [Syllabus]
	ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
	[Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [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.
	[Syllabus]
	KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [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.
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INTL CO. V. MALAYSIA INTL SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER [Syllabus]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	BRADSHAW V. STUMPF [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCHAFFER V. WEAST [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC. [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES [Syllabus]
	KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
	[Syllabus]
	WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996). [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.
	SMITH V. ROBBINS [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MARCUS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [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?
	[Syllabus]
	HOLLAND V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [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?
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PLATA [Syllabus]