Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean HHS or CF or health?

Your query hhs or hcfa or health returned 141 results.

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

	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Opinion]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Opinion]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Opinion]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Opinion]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	ROE V. WADE [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Concurrence]
	DEAN MILK CO. V. CITY OF MADISON [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Opinion]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concurrence]
	KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER [Syllabus] Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Syllabus]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Dissent]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Opinion]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Syllabus]
	PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. V. BOOK [Syllabus] Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff's RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concurrence]
	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.
	DOE V. BOLTON [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion]
	BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME, INC. V. WESTVIRGINIA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES [Syllabus] The "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Concurrence]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Opinion]
	DEAN MILK CO. V. CITY OF MADISON [Dissent]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Concurrence]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [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?"
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Opinion]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	BEAL V. DOE [Dissent]
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion]
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Opinion]
	BEAL V. DOE [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Opinion]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	SUMMIT HEALTH, LTD. V. PINHAS, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Opinion]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	[Syllabus]
	BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SHALALA V. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONGTERM CARE, INC. [Syllabus] Whether 42 U.S.C. 405H(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to obtain judicial review under 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) to challenge the validity of Medicare regulations.
	NLRB V. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORP., 114 S. CT. 1778, 128 L. ED. 2D 586 (1994) [Syllabus]
	YOUR HOME VISITING NURSE SERVICES, INC. V. SHALALA [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Syllabus]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER [Syllabus] Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [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.
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Syllabus]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Dissent]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	BERMAN V. PARKER [Opinion]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ROWE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	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®.
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Dissent]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Concurrence]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Opinion]
	HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. CITY OF DETROIT [Opinion]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Syllabus]
	POELKER V. DOE [Dissent]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Dissent]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS [Dissent]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Dissent]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Concurrence]
	FISCHER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether Medicare payments to a hospital for services provided to Medicare patients qualify as ""benefits"" to meet the jurisdictional requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. 666 so as to federalize crimes of theft, embezzlement, and bribery involving the hospital?"
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [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.
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	ROE V. WADE [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Opinion]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS [Opinion]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Dissent]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Concurrence]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Syllabus]
	******** [Dissent]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Dissent]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Dissent]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Dissent]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS V. TRAVELERS, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) [Syllabus]
	THUNDER BASIN COAL V. REICH, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER []
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Opinion]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Dissent]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Syllabus]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	BEAL V. DOE [Dissent]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Opinion]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Syllabus]
	MAHER V. ROE [Opinion]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Dissent]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Opinion]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Opinion]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	PEGRAM V. HERDRICH [Syllabus] Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
	FORT GRATIOT SANITARY LANDFILL V. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 504 [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSN. V. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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."
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	MCNEIL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 106 (1993). [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. SIGMON COAL CO. [Syllabus] The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 does not permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign retired miners to the successors in interest of out-of-business coal operators that signed agreements requiring contributions to the 1950 or 1974 Benefits Plans for miners.
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Concurrence]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Concurrence]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC. [Opinion]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Concurrence]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Opinion]
	IN RE GAULT [Opinion]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Opinion]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. [Syllabus]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Concurrence]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BUCHANAN V. WARLEY [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Syllabus]
	MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Opinion]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [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?
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SHALALA V. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSP., 514 U.S. 87 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F. [Syllabus]
	SUTER V. ARTIST M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). [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?
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG. [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.
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY [Syllabus] The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
	GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP. V. SHALALA, 508 U.S. 402 (1993). [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.
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN [Syllabus] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
	MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [Syllabus]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Dissent]
	HUTCHINSON V. PROXMIRE [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	BARRON V. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE [Syllabus]
	BLOCK V. HIRSH [Opinion]
	MISSOURI V. JENKINS [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Syllabus]
	DEAN MILK CO. V. CITY OF MADISON [Syllabus]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Opinion]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Dissent]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	CRAIG V. BOREN [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Opinion]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Opinion]
	BLOCK V. HIRSH [Dissent]
	IN RE WINSHIP [Opinion]
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Syllabus]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT [Dissent]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Dissent]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	POELKER V. DOE [Opinion]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS [Syllabus]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Concurrence]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Opinion]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Opinion]
	MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concurrence]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	A BOOK NAMED "JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE" V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS [Dissent]
	LAU V. NICHOLS [Concurrence]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Opinion]
	BUCK V. BELL [Opinion]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Syllabus]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Concurrence]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Opinion]
	CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT V. HUNT, 504 U.S. 334 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BELL V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NEW HAMPSHIRE V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. V. SCHOONEJONGEN, 514 U.S. 73 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	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?
	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.
	HOPE V. PELZER [Syllabus] Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
	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.
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.. V. F.C.C. , 512 U.S. 622 (1994) [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [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.
	SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE V. TULANE ED. FUND, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) [Syllabus]
	OVERTON V. BAZZETTA [Syllabus] In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
	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.
	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.
	HELLER V. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON [Syllabus] Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	MELKONYAN V. SULLIVAN, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 515 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD FIRE INS. V. CALIFORNIA, 509 U.S. 764 (1993). [Syllabus]
	N.O.W. V. SCHEIDLER, 510 U.S. 249 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [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?
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, N.Y., 114 S. CT. 1677, 128 L. [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. WIRTZ [Dissent]
	WARD V. ROCK AGAINST RACISM [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Syllabus]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES [Opinion]
	HUNT V. WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION [Opinion]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Opinion]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Concurrence]
	FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON [Opinion]
	******** [Opinion]
	A BOOK NAMED "JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE" V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS [Concurrence]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO [Opinion]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Syllabus]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. OPPERMAN [Opinion]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS [Concurrence]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Dissent]
	GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE [Opinion]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Opinion]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	EVANS V. NEWTON []
	ROMER V. EVANS [Syllabus]
	WILLSON V. BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH COMPANY [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Dissent]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Dissent]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BLOCK V. HIRSH [Syllabus]
	WILLSON V. BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH COMPANY [Opinion]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA [Dissent]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concurrence]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Dissent]
	CALIFORNIA V. GREENWOOD [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Concurrence]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS [Opinion]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Dissent]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Concurrence]
	LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER [Dissent]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Syllabus]
	MAHER V. ROE [Concurrence]
	SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC. [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Dissent]
	LAU V. NICHOLS [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Concurrence]
	******** [Concurrence]
	******** [Opinion]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Opinion]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Opinion]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Syllabus]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ [Dissent]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Opinion]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Opinion]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Dissent]
	RANKIN V. MCPHERSON [Opinion]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Opinion]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Syllabus]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	OSBORNE V. OHIO [Opinion]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence]
	LAU V. NICHOLS [Opinion]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Opinion]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Concurrence]
	LEHMAN V. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Syllabus]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Opinion]
	CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Syllabus]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Concurrence]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Dissent]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Opinion]
	ROE V. WADE [Concurrence]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Syllabus]
	BEAL V. DOE [Syllabus]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Concurrence]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	LOVING V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	AMBACH V. NORWICK [Opinion]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Dissent]
	SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Dissent]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER [Opinion]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOOTH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	MARYLAND V. WIRTZ [Opinion]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. CITY OF DETROIT [Syllabus]
	HEAD MONEY CASES [Opinion]
	TRUAX V. RAICH [Opinion]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Opinion]
	MATHEWS V. LUCAS [Syllabus]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL [Concurrence]
	******** [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	HOYT V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Concurrence]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Opinion]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. GATHERS [Dissent]
	PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Concurrence]
	HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER [Dissent]
	ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN [Concurrence]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	DELAWARE V. PROUSE [Opinion]
	RENO V. ACLU [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Dissent]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Concurrence]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Dissent]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent]
	YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Syllabus]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP [Concurrence]
	BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP. [Opinion]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Opinion]
	THORNHILL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Dissent]
	MATHEWS V. LUCAS [Opinion]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Syllabus]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Dissent]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Dissent]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Dissent]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN []
	AMBACH V. NORWICK [Dissent]
	PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Syllabus]
	YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO [Opinion]
	HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. CITY OF DETROIT [Dissent]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Syllabus]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Dissent]
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Opinion]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Dissent]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Opinion]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Opinion]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion]
	SHALALA V. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONGTERM CARE, INC. [Syllabus] Whether 42 U.S.C. 405H(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to obtain judicial review under 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) to challenge the validity of Medicare regulations.
	[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.
	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?
	KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER [Syllabus] Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. V. BOOK [Syllabus] Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff's RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.
	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.
	BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME, INC. V. WESTVIRGINIA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES [Syllabus] The "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [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?"
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SUMMIT HEALTH, LTD. V. PINHAS, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	YOUR HOME VISITING NURSE SERVICES, INC. V. SHALALA [Syllabus]
	BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORP., 114 S. CT. 1778, 128 L. ED. 2D 586 (1994) [Syllabus]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER [Syllabus] Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
	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®.
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ROWE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [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.
	FISCHER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether Medicare payments to a hospital for services provided to Medicare patients qualify as ""benefits"" to meet the jurisdictional requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. 666 so as to federalize crimes of theft, embezzlement, and bribery involving the hospital?"
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	THUNDER BASIN COAL V. REICH, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS V. TRAVELERS, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSN. V. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. SIGMON COAL CO. [Syllabus] The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 does not permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign retired miners to the successors in interest of out-of-business coal operators that signed agreements requiring contributions to the 1950 or 1974 Benefits Plans for miners.
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MCNEIL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 106 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	PEGRAM V. HERDRICH [Syllabus] Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
	FORT GRATIOT SANITARY LANDFILL V. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 504 [Syllabus]
	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."
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	SHALALA V. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSP., 514 U.S. 87 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F. [Syllabus]
	SUTER V. ARTIST M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). [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?
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG. [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.
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY [Syllabus] The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
	GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP. V. SHALALA, 508 U.S. 402 (1993). [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.
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN [Syllabus] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
	MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [Syllabus]
	CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT V. HUNT, 504 U.S. 334 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BELL V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NEW HAMPSHIRE V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. V. SCHOONEJONGEN, 514 U.S. 73 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	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?
	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.
	HOPE V. PELZER [Syllabus] Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
	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.
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.. V. F.C.C. , 512 U.S. 622 (1994) [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [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.
	SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE V. TULANE ED. FUND, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) [Syllabus]
	OVERTON V. BAZZETTA [Syllabus] In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
	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.
	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.
	HELLER V. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON [Syllabus] Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	MELKONYAN V. SULLIVAN, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 515 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD FIRE INS. V. CALIFORNIA, 509 U.S. 764 (1993). [Syllabus]
	N.O.W. V. SCHEIDLER, 510 U.S. 249 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [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?
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, N.Y., 114 S. CT. 1677, 128 L. [Syllabus]