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"

Your query federalism returned 38 results.

1000 BOND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
893 RENO V. CONDON
[Syllabus]
Whether the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, contravenes constitutional principles of federalism.
770 UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
[Syllabus]
608 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."
608 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
608 HORNE V.FLORES
[Syllabus]
608 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385 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."
385
[Syllabus]
385 FRY V. PLILER
[Syllabus]
385 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.
385 CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385 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."
385 LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY
[Syllabus]
385 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
385 SEMTEK INT’L INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.
[Syllabus]
1. Is this Court's holding in Dupasseur-- that the resjudicata effect of the judgment of a federal court sitting in diversity ""is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances,"" and that ""no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed,"" 88 U. S. at 135-- still good law? 2. If Dupasseur is overruled or modified by this Court, what should be the res judicata effect of a statute of limitations dismissal in a federal court diversity suit?"
385 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
[Syllabus]
385 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
385 BEARD V. KINDLER
[Syllabus]
385 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVS.V. BLUMER
[Syllabus]
The Wisconsin Medicaid statute's "income-first" prescription requiring that potential income transfers from an institutionalized spouse to her spouse living at home be considered in determining whether to increase the latter's "Community Spouse Resource Allowance" is a permissible interpretation of the federal Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.
385 FLORIDA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. PICCADILLYCAFETERIAS, INC.
[Syllabus]
385 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.
385
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385 RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO.
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385
[Syllabus]
385 GONZALES V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
385 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.
385 FREW V. HAWKINS
[Syllabus]
This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
385
[Syllabus]
385 QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996)
[Syllabus]
385 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]