Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query equal and protection returned 84 results.

	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	FORD V. GEORGIA, 498 U.S. 411 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	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.
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	POWERS V. OHIO, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	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?
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [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.
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	HERNANDEZ V. NEW YORK, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GREGORY V. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NORTHEASTERN FLA. CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GEN. CONTRACTORS V. CITY OF [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
	NORDLINGER V. HAHN, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	J.E.B. V. ALABAMA EX REL. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HELLER V. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FITZGERALD V. RACING ASSN. OF CENTRAL IOWA [Syllabus] Can the State of Iowa tax the revenue from slot machines at parimutuel racetracks and the revenue from all casino games on riverboats, including slot machines, at different rates without violating the Equal Protection Clause?
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL [Syllabus] The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
	BOARD OF ED. OF OKLAHOMA CITY V. DOWELL, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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?
	BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE, 112 S. CT. 2727, 120 L. ED. 2D 575 (1992). [Syllabus]
	F.C.C. V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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.
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	LEATHERS V. MEDLOCK, 499 U.S. 439 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GEORGIA V. MCCOLLUM, 505 U.S. 42 (1992) [Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [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.
	UNITED STATES V. HAYS, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. HUNT, 116 S.CT. 1894, 135 L.ED.2D 207 (1996) [Syllabus]
	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?
	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	EDMONSON V. LEESVILLE CONCRETE CO., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON NORTHERN R. V. FORD, 504 U.S. 648 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EDGE BROADCASTING, 509 U.S. 418 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [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.
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALA. V. RANDOLPH [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a ""final decision with respect to an arbitration"" appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16 (a) (3). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that arbitration provision that was ""silent"" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights."
	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?
	MICKENS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] In order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where the trial court fails to inquire into defense counsel's potential conflict of interest about which the court knew or reasonably should have known, the defendant must establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance.
	NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
	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?
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	LIVADAS V. BRADSHAW, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997). [Syllabus]
	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.
	MILLER-EL V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	FULTON CORP. V. FAULKNER, SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF N. C., 516 U.S. 325 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) [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?
	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.
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus] The District Court's conclusion that North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing its Twelfth Congressional District's boundaries is based on clearly erroneous findings.