Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query evidence returned 570 results.

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

	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
	[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	BANKS V. DRETKE [Syllabus] In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence.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?
	[Syllabus]
	WEISGRAM  V.  MARLEY CO. [Syllabus] 1. If the District Court erred in admitting the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts and the relief to be awarded is a new trial, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in conflict with its own precedent and decisions of other United States Courts of Appeal if it granted judgment as a matter of law to Marley Company after excising portions of Plaintiffs' experts' testimony?
	KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). [Syllabus]
	AYERS V. BELMONTES [Syllabus]
	CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER [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.
	BREWER V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN [Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HARRINGTON V. RICHTER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PENRY V. JOHNSON [Syllabus] The jury instructions at Penry's resentencing for capital murder did not comply with the Court's mandate in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302; the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	RICCI V. DESTEFANO [Syllabus]
	TENNARD V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	WOOD V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	WIGGINS V. SMITH [Syllabus] Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
	METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD. [Syllabus]
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. I4I LTD. PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 520 U.S. 471 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY V. KING [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PLATA [Syllabus]
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PEPPER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STRICKLER V. GREENE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	SKINNER V. SWITZER [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	BERGHUIS V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PAYTON [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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""?
	KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
	CONE V. BELL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PATANE [Syllabus] Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
	[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?
	CARMELL V. TEXAS [Syllabus] Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [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?"
	FLORIDA V. NIXON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. BLACK [Syllabus] Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even though the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
	BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO [Syllabus]
	VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. [Syllabus]
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SHINSEKI V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	WEEKS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] 1. Is there any ""compelling"" reason to review the Fourth Circuit's application of this Court's recent decision in Buchannan V. Angelone, 118 S. Ct. 757 (1998), to the facts of petitioner's case, which are substantially indistinguishable from those in Buchanan?"
	BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS [Syllabus]
	BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LILLY V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. V. SEB S. A. [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. WRIGHT, 497 U.S. 805 (1990) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JOINER, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	EDWARDS V. CARPENTER [Syllabus] Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
	[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).
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	REGALADO CUELLAR V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. GANT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
	DRETKE V. HALEY [Syllabus] Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	WYOMING V. HOUGHTON [Syllabus]
	KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. JORDAN [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [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.
	JOHNSON V. JONES, 515 U.S. 304 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N. A. [Syllabus] A complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, but instead must contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
	MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC. V. SIRACUSANO [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.
	[Syllabus]
	GRAY V. MARYLAND, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) [Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. MASSACHUSETTS [Syllabus]
	BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH [Syllabus]
	KNOWLES V. IOWA [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMIN. V. FAVISH [Syllabus] The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	TOME V. UNITED STATES, 513 U.S. 150 (1995). [Syllabus]
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus] The Sixth Circuit did not apply the proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because that court analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives.
	HERRING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	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?
	RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. [Syllabus] Whether the district court erred in concluding that, because Bossier Parish School Board’s 1992 redistricting plan was not enacted with a retrogressive purpose, it was not enacted with ""the purpose *** of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,"" within the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S C. 1973c.
	CORLEY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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.
	GILES V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM. [Syllabus] Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HENDERSON V. SHINSEKI [Syllabus]
	BOYLE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	HARDT V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus] Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) [Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. VENTRIS [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GOMEZ-PEREZ V. POTTER [Syllabus]
	SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BANKS [Syllabus] Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
	MCMILLIAN V. MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, 520 U.S. 781 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RICE V. COLLINS [Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. BRYANT [Syllabus]
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MV. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SMITH V. SPISAK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. V. LASTINGIMPRESSION I, INC. [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	[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?
	NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES [Syllabus]
	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."
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	BRADSHAW V. STUMPF [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS [Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	SHALALA V. WHITECOTTON, 514 U.S. 268 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BUSH V. VERA, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SMITH V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [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.
	[Syllabus]
	WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	[Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CV. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution; the evidence in this case is insufficient to support summary judgment for respondents on the dilution count.
	[Syllabus]
	SHAW V. HUNT, 116 S.CT. 1894, 135 L.ED.2D 207 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NKEN V. HOLDER [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."
	GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS [Syllabus]
	KUCANA V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD [Syllabus]
	PERDUE V. KENNY A. [Syllabus]
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ALLISON ENGINE CO. V. UNITED STATES EX REL.SANDERS [Syllabus]
	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.
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	NEVADA COMMN ON ETHICS V. CARRIGAN [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOBBY V. BIES [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STAUB V. PROCTOR HOSPITAL [Syllabus]
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 117 S.CT. 1953, 138 L.ED.2D 327 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	FOWLER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	SCHAFFER V. WEAST [Syllabus]
	TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[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.
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 516 U.S. 22 (1995) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (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?
	NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS [Syllabus] Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
	[Syllabus]
	ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA [Syllabus] Whether trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to file a notice of appeal following a guilty plea in the absence a request by the defendant, particularly where the defendant has been advised of his appeal rights.
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	BAZE V. REES [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."
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. SHELTON [Syllabus] Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
	[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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	DADA V. MUKASEY [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MISSOURI V. SEIBERT [Syllabus] Is the rule that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985), abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?
	MEDELLIN V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	MASSARO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a federal criminal defendant, whose new appellate counsel fails to raise, on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is procedurally barred from asserting that constitutional claim in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
	HORNE V.FLORES [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WYETH V. LEVINE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [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?
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	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?
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	ASTRUE V. RATLIFF [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	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?
	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.
	BELL V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	BRACY V. GRAMLEY, WARDEN, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). [Syllabus]
	PFAFF V. WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) [Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	561 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRYAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA V. BROWN, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN [Syllabus] Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
	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?
	DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MID-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB.SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CAL. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MARCUS [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. PHILIP MORRIS COS. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JIMENEZ RECIO [Syllabus] A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object.
	POSTAL SERVICE V. GREGORY [Syllabus] The Merit Systems Protection Board may review independently prior disciplinary actions pending in grievance proceedings when reviewing termination and other serious disciplinary actions.
	UNITED STATES V. HAYS, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) [Syllabus]
	GARNER  V.  JONES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
	BROGAN V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JERMAN V. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, RINI,KRAMER & ULRICH LPA [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES,P. C. V. WELLS [Syllabus] Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. is a medical clinic formed as a professional corporation but which operates and has legal attributes of a partnership. The question presented is whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if the Clinic's physician-shareholders are counted as employees for the purpose of determining if the Clinic is a covered entity subject to the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination states. In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the physician-shareholders are employees. The court below rejected the holdings of the Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits which used an economic realities test. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit which rejected that test.
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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."
	[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?
	VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. STEVENS [Syllabus]
	MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC. V. PUBLICUTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH CTY. [Syllabus]
	CONNICK V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	[Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAYES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EURODIF S. A. [Syllabus]
	FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM. [Syllabus]
	DAVIS 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.
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 515 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC. V. HALLIBURTON CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BESTFOODS, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) [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?
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MARKMAN ET AL. V. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., ET AL., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [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.
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HAMILTON V. LANNING [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON [Syllabus] This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FORNEY V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 266 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. BAYER CORP. [Syllabus]
	J. D. B. V. NORTH CAROLINA [Syllabus]
	INS V. ST. CYR [Syllabus] Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS [Syllabus] Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consistent with the Clean Waters Act and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters solely because those waters solely because those waters do or potentially could serve as habitat of migratory birds."
	ARIZONA V. JOHNSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [Syllabus]
	DUNCAN V. WALKER [Syllabus] A federal habeas petition is not an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" within 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2)'s meaning, so that provision did not toll the limitation period for filing respondent's second federal habeas petition during the pendency of his first federal habeas petition.
	JOHANNS V. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSN. [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. RODRIGUEZ, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) [Syllabus]
	LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus]
	SUITUM V. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	[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.
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HATTER [Syllabus] The judgment below is reversed insofar as the Federal Circuit found that the application of Medicare taxes to the salaries of federal judges taking office before 1983 violated the Compensation Clause, but affirmed insofar as that court found the application of Social Security taxes to the salaries of judges taking office before 1984 unconstitutional; a 1984 salary increase received by federal judges did not cure the latter violation.
	PLIVA, INC. V. MENSING [Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	CARR V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). [Syllabus]
	FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC. V. KAPLAN, 514 U.S. 938 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. [Syllabus] Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
	US AIRWAYS, INC. V. BARNETT [Syllabus] An employer's showing that an "accommodation" requested under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 conflicts with seniority rules is ordinarily sufficient to show that the accommodation is not "reasonable"; but the employee remains free to show special circumstances that make a seniority rule exception reasonable in the particular case.
	UNITED STATES V. BEAN [Syllabus] The absence of an actual denial by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of a felon's petition for relief from firearms disabilities precludes judicial review under 18 U. S. C. §925(c).
	UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TAPIA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NOV.HOLDER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	BEHRENS V. PELLETIER, 516 U.S. 299 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990) [Syllabus]
	COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER [Syllabus] Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. WILSON, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	[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.
	ARCHER V. WARNER [Syllabus] A debt for money promised in a settlement agreement accompanied by the release of underlying tort claims can amount to a debt for money obtained by fraud, within the terms of 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(2)(A), the Bankruptcy Code's nondischargeability provision.
	[Syllabus]
	NASA V. NELSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL [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.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR, 515 U.S. 593 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. MCBRIDE [Syllabus]
	FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DIST. V. T. A. [Syllabus]
	WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL [Syllabus] 1. Whether economic sanctions against Burma enacted by Congress in 1996-- three months after enactment of the Massachusetts Burma Law-- implicitly permit, or preempt, state and local selective purchasing laws regarding Burma. 2. Whether selective purchasing law such as the Massachusetts Burma Law represent ""market participation,"" not regulation, and are therefore exempt from claims based on the Foreign Commerce Clause and the foreign affairs power of the federal government. 3. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. 4. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law discriminate against foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause."
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. GLENN [Syllabus]
	J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. [Syllabus] Utility patents may be issued for newly developed plant breeds under 35 U. S. C. §101; neither the Plant Variety Protection Act nor the Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits the scope of §101's coverage.
	BARTLETT V. STRICKLAND [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	CUOMO V. CLEARING HOUSE ASSN., L. L. C. [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause.
	NEW HAMPSHIRE V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NEGUSIE V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
	[Syllabus]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUBS FREEDOMCLUB PAC V.BENNETT [Syllabus]
	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.
	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER [Syllabus]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	YEAGER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FIOR D’ITALIA, INC. [Syllabus] In assessing a restaurant for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes based upon tips that its employees may have received but did not report, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use an aggregate estimate of all tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees.
	ARKANSAS ED. TELEVISION COMM'N V. FORBES, 523 U.S. 666 (1997) [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995) [Syllabus]
	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	NEVADA V. HICKS [Syllabus] A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	IOWA V. TOVAR [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.
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SANTOS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	[Syllabus]
	PREMO V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	DECK V. MISSOURI [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	[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.
	MUEHLER V. MENA [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.
	WINTER V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FCC V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	KSR INTL CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC. [Syllabus] What must be shown to establish that a product's design is inherently distinctive for purposes of Lanham Act trade-dress protection?"
	[Syllabus]
	FREIGHTLINER CORP. V. MYRICK, 514 U.S. 280 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. [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.
	SKILLING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ROTHGERY V. GILLESPIE COUNTY [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	TRW INC. V. ANDREWS [Syllabus] The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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?
	[Syllabus]