Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query immigration or INS returned 119 results.

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

	IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERV. V. YUEH SHAIO YANG, 519 U.S. 26 (1996) [Syllabus]
	INS V. CHADHA [Opinion]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Dissent]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Dissent]
	INS V. CHADHA [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Opinion]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Opinion]
	QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) [Syllabus]
	JAMA V. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [Syllabus]
	INS V. CHADHA [Concurrence]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Syllabus]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Concurrence]
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE [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.
	HARTFORD FIRE INS. V. CALIFORNIA, 509 U.S. 764 (1993). [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CALCANO-MARTINEZ V. INS [Syllabus] The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 precludes courts of appeals from exercising jurisdiction to review a final removal order against aliens removable by reason of aggravated felony convictions, but such aliens may pursue habeas relief in the district court.
	RENO V. CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVS., 509 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. TICOR TITLE INS., 504 U.S. 621 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FIRSTIER MORTGAGE CO. V.INVESTORS MTGE INS. CO., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. V. DARDEN, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). [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.
	ATLANTIC MUT. INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 523 U.S. 382 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	KOKKONEN V. GUARDIAN LIFE INS., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) [Syllabus]
	MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU, 508 U.S. 286 (1993). [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."
	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?
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [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.
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Dissent]
	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.
	RENO V. FLORES, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Opinion]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Opinion]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Dissent]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Opinion]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Concurrence]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Opinion]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. HAGGAR APPAREL CO. [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?
	LOPEZ V. DAVIS [Syllabus] Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HONDA MOTOR CO. V. OBERG, 512 U.S. 415 (1994). [Syllabus]
	FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	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.
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	TRIMBLE V. GORDON [Dissent]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS V. GATES [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN COMPANY [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL []
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Opinion]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Opinion]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Dissent]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Dissent]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	FRANKLIN V. GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS [Opinion]
	WARTH V. SELDIN [Opinion]
	VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [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.
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [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. 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.
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT [Syllabus] A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
	LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus]
	WASH. AIRPORTS AUTH. V. NOISE ABATEMENT CITIZENS, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. [Syllabus] An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	REGINA COLLEGE V. RUSSELL, 499 U.S. 225 [Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC. [Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	SEC V. ZANDFORD [Syllabus] Assuming that the allegations in the SEC's complaint are true, respondent's alleged fraudulent conduct-selling his customer's securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer's knowledge or consent-was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's Rule 10b-5.
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BOWLES V. RUSSELL [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). [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.
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [Syllabus]
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE [Syllabus] Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
	SMILEY V. CITIBANK (S.D.), N. A., 517 U.S. 735 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). [Syllabus]
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]
	EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EXXON CORP. V. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FREYTAG V. COMMISSIONER, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MEDELLIN V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA DEP'T OF REVENUE V. LOEWENSTEIN, 115 S. CT. 557, 130 L. ED. 2D (1994) [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (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.
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [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?
	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?
	POWEREX CORP. V. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Opinion]
	BAKER V. CARR [Dissent]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Dissent]
	WARTH V. SELDIN [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STEARNS V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	POLICE DEP'T V. MOSLEY [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Opinion]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Dissent]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK [Dissent]
	ROWAN V. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT [Opinion]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Opinion]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Opinion]
	SCHICK V. REED [Dissent]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Dissent]
	ROE V. WADE [Concurrence]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION [Opinion]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA [Opinion]
	PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Opinion]
	LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO [Opinion]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. [Opinion]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. [Opinion]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Opinion]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Opinion]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion]
	LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Syllabus]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Dissent]
	TRIMBLE V. GORDON [Opinion]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Concurrence]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Dissent]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent]
	MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO. [Dissent]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Opinion]
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE [Dissent]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Opinion]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Syllabus]
	WARTH V. SELDIN [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	BAKER V. CARR [Concurrence]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Opinion]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Opinion]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Opinion]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Dissent]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Concurrence]
	REID V. COVERT [Concurrence]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	BAKER V. CARR [Dissent]
	RENO V. CONDON [Opinion]
	ERZNOZNIK V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	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.
	INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE [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.
	CALCANO-MARTINEZ V. INS [Syllabus] The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 precludes courts of appeals from exercising jurisdiction to review a final removal order against aliens removable by reason of aggravated felony convictions, but such aliens may pursue habeas relief in the district court.
	IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERV. V. YUEH SHAIO YANG, 519 U.S. 26 (1996) [Syllabus]
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [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.
	RENO V. FLORES, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RENO V. CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVS., 509 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) [Syllabus]
	JAMA V. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [Syllabus]
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD FIRE INS. V. CALIFORNIA, 509 U.S. 764 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FIRSTIER MORTGAGE CO. V.INVESTORS MTGE INS. CO., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [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."
	FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. TICOR TITLE INS., 504 U.S. 621 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU, 508 U.S. 286 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [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?
	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.
	KOKKONEN V. GUARDIAN LIFE INS., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	ATLANTIC MUT. INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 523 U.S. 382 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. V. DARDEN, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) [Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. MARTINEZ [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.
	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.
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MUEHLER V. MENA [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAGGAR APPAREL CO. [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONCOMM. [Syllabus]
	HONDA MOTOR CO. V. OBERG, 512 U.S. 415 (1994). [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	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.
	LOPEZ V. DAVIS [Syllabus] Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [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.
	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?
	SALE V. HAITIAN CTRS. COUNCIL, 113 S. CT. 2549, 113 S. CT. 2549, 125 L., 509 U.S. 155 (1993) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BOWLES V. RUSSELL [Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [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. 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.
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT [Syllabus] A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
	LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus]
	WASH. AIRPORTS AUTH. V. NOISE ABATEMENT CITIZENS, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. [Syllabus] An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC. [Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	SEC V. ZANDFORD [Syllabus] Assuming that the allegations in the SEC's complaint are true, respondent's alleged fraudulent conduct-selling his customer's securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer's knowledge or consent-was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's Rule 10b-5.
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SMILEY V. CITIBANK (S.D.), N. A., 517 U.S. 735 (1996). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [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.
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EXXON CORP. V. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE [Syllabus] Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
	FREYTAG V. COMMISSIONER, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). [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.
	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.
	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.
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE [Syllabus]
	MEDELLIN V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA DEP'T OF REVENUE V. LOEWENSTEIN, 115 S. CT. 557, 130 L. ED. 2D (1994) [Syllabus]
	REGINA COLLEGE V. RUSSELL, 499 U.S. 225 [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (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.
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [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?
	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?
	VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BOND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [Syllabus]
	POWEREX CORP. V. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]