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"

Did you mean environment or resource and conservation or EPA?

Your query environment or (resource and conservation) or EPA returned 68 results.

1000 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.
980 CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
836 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
728 COEUR ALASKA, INC. V. SOUTHEAST ALASKACONSERVATION COUNCIL
[Syllabus]
693 WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
676
[Syllabus]
664 AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
647 NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE
[Syllabus]
628 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Concurrence]
613 CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
[Syllabus]
594 STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
594 ENTERGY CORP. V. RIVERKEEPER, INC.
[Syllabus]
551 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Dissent]
549
[Syllabus]
479 MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO.
[Opinion]
465 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Opinion]
429 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP.
[Syllabus]
429
[Syllabus]
429 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
393 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY
[Opinion]
383
[Syllabus]
383 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Syllabus]
330 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN
[Syllabus]
Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
330 HICKLIN V. ORBECK
[Opinion]
321 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Opinion]
273 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Dissent]
261
[Syllabus]
261 BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC
[Syllabus]
261 NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
[Dissent]
261 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
261 TRAIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Opinion]
246 LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
[Opinion]
213 SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC.
[Opinion]
213 MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO.
[Syllabus]
165 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI
[Syllabus]
165 VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
165 MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996).
[Syllabus]
165 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
165 INS V. CHADHA
[Opinion]
165 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Concurrence]
165 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY
[Dissent]
165 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY
[Dissent]
165 CLARK V. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NONVIOLENCE
[Opinion]
1000 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.
894 COEUR ALASKA, INC. V. SOUTHEAST ALASKACONSERVATION COUNCIL
[Syllabus]
836 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
760 ENTERGY CORP. V. RIVERKEEPER, INC.
[Syllabus]
693 WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
676
[Syllabus]
664 AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
664 STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
647 NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE
[Syllabus]
573 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?
551 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.
551
[Syllabus]
549
[Syllabus]
496 MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996).
[Syllabus]
465 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
465 BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
[Syllabus]
465 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
429 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP.
[Syllabus]
429
[Syllabus]
426 BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC
[Syllabus]
383
[Syllabus]
330 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN
[Syllabus]
Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
330 VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
261 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)?
261 MORSE V. FREDERICK
[Syllabus]
261 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
261
[Syllabus]
261
[Syllabus]
261 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).
261 MONSANTO CO. V. GEERTSON SEED FARMS
[Syllabus]
165 RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO.
[Syllabus]
165 BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).
[Syllabus]
165 AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997).
[Syllabus]
165 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES
[Syllabus]
165 PORTER V. NUSSLE
[Syllabus]
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
165
[Syllabus]
165 BOND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165 VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND
[Syllabus]
165 MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC. V. PUBLICUTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH CTY.
[Syllabus]
165 NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE
[Syllabus]
165 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.
165 DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
165 ROPER V. SIMMONS
[Syllabus]
165 TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
[Syllabus]
165 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
165 CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
165 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.
165
[Syllabus]
165 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
165 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)
[Syllabus]
165 UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).
[Syllabus]
165 CRAWFORD V. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OFNASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON CTY.
[Syllabus]
165 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
165 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.
165 ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP.
[Syllabus]
165 PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990)
[Syllabus]
165 SUMMERS V. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE
[Syllabus]
165 VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMMN OF MD.
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
165 MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCINGSOUTHEAST, INC. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding-contrary to decisions of this Court, other courts of appeals, and state courts, as well as the Restatements and leading treatises-that petitioner could not receive restitution of the $78 million paid to the United States for oil and gas leases following the enactment of a statute, which the trial court found ""clearly reduce(d) the value and materially alter(ed) the structure and framework"" of those leases, because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
165 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""?
165
[Syllabus]
165 DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED.
[Syllabus]
165 SINOCHEM INTL CO. V. MALAYSIA INTL SHIPPINGCORP.
[Syllabus]
165
[Syllabus]
165 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?