skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Did you mean Indian or native and American or tribe?

Your query indian or (native and american) or tribe returned 67 results.

1000 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
698 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
698 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
688 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
688 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
672 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Dissent]
618 CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N.†Y.
[Syllabus]
618 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Opinion]
615 UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK
[Opinion]
608 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
571 MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)
[Syllabus]
520 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Dissent]
518 WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. BRACKER
[Opinion]
516 C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS
[Syllabus]
Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
486
[Syllabus]
482 SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998)
[Syllabus]
474 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
452 IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
452 KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)
[Syllabus]
446
[Syllabus]
441 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
436 WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. BRACKER
[Dissent]
425 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
425 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
425 UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
425 IDAHO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
425 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
425 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
413 AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
406 SOUTH FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. V.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
399 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995).
[Syllabus]
399 WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. BRACKER
[Syllabus]
392 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
392 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
392 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
391 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
389 PEREZ V. BROWNELL
[Dissent]
384 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
383 TALBOT V. JANSON
[Syllabus]
379 SCHNEIDER V. RUSK
[Dissent]
376 ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998)
[Syllabus]
366
[Syllabus]
357 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.
357 UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION
[Syllabus]
357 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
357 PEREZ V. BROWNELL
[Opinion]
347 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
336 CARCIERI V. SALAZAR
[Syllabus]
336 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Syllabus]
334 BOWEN V. ROY
[Opinion]
324 UNITED STATES V. LARA
[Syllabus]
Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
311 WILLIAMS V. LEE
[Opinion]
311 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
309 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
309 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
308 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Dissent]
308 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Opinion]
300 BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
297 STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
297 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN.
[Syllabus]
Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
297 SCHNEIDER V. RUSK
[Opinion]
296 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA
[Dissent]
296 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Opinion]
281 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
271 PEREZ V. BROWNELL
[Dissent]
271 UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK
[Dissent]
263 WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
[Syllabus]
263 CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT
[Syllabus]
263 BAKER V. CARR
[Opinion]
262 AFROYIM V. RUSK
[Dissent]
243 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
241 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Concurrence]
241 AFROYIM V. RUSK
[Opinion]
229 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
229 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Concurrence]
217 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
217 CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998)
[Syllabus]
217 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Opinion]
214 UNITED STATES V. LIBELLANTS AND CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER AMISTAD
[Opinion]
214 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY
[Dissent]
214 TROP V. DULLES
[Opinion]
209 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Dissent]
202 GIBBONS V. OGDEN
[Opinion]
202 BAKER V. CARR
[Dissent]
202 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Opinion]
187
[Syllabus]
187 MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS
[Syllabus]
187 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Dissent]
187 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
187 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Opinion]
187 JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO.
[Dissent]
187 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
182
[Syllabus]
182 WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO
[Dissent]
168 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Dissent]
167 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Opinion]
154 TROP V. DULLES
[Dissent]
154 IN RE NEAGLE
[Dissent]
148
[Syllabus]
148 NEVADA V. HICKS
[Syllabus]
A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
148 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
148 VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMMíN OF MD.
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
148 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
148 ********
[Dissent]
148 SAINT FRANCIS COLLEGE V. AL-KHAZRAJI
[Opinion]
148 ********
[Opinion]
148 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Concurrence]
148 BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN
[Dissent]
139 GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER
[Syllabus]
1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
139 SCHNEIDER V. RUSK
[Syllabus]
139 EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS
[Opinion]
139 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Dissent]
139 APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE
[Opinion]
139 MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA
[Opinion]
139 AMBACH V. NORWICK
[Dissent]
139 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Concurrence]
139 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Opinion]
139 UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN
[Dissent]
120 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
120 IN RE NEAGLE
[Opinion]
120 CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
120 PLESSY V. FERGUSON
[Dissent]
120 ENGEL V. VITALE
[Dissent]
93 UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP.
[Syllabus]
93 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMíN V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY
[Syllabus]
State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
93 BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether sand and gravel are ‚Äúvaluable minerals‚ÄĚ reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
93 DADA V. MUKASEY
[Syllabus]
93
[Syllabus]
93 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]
93 BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997).
[Syllabus]
93 EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE
[Syllabus]
93 KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS
[Syllabus]
Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
93
[Syllabus]
93
[Syllabus]
93 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
[Syllabus]
93 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
93 COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD.
[Syllabus]
93
[Syllabus]
93
[Syllabus]
93 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
93 CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
93 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Dissent]
93 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Dissent]
93 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 BOWEN V. ROY
[Concurrence]
93 ALLEN V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
93 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Dissent]
93 GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE
[Opinion]
93 LUTHER V. BORDEN
[Dissent]
93 YICK WO V. HOPKINS
[Syllabus]
93 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Opinion]
93 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Dissent]
93 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
93 EX PARTE GARLAND
[Dissent]
93 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Opinion]
93 POWELL V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
93 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Dissent]
93 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Dissent]
93 CLINTON V. JONES
[Opinion]
93 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT
[Opinion]
93 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Opinion]
93 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 TALBOT V. JANSON
[]
93 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Concurrence]
93 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES
[Opinion]
93 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Opinion]
93 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Concurrence]
93 INS V. CHADHA
[Concurrence]
93 ********
[Opinion]
93 BOWEN V. ROY
[Syllabus]
93 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 HEAD MONEY CASES
[Opinion]
93 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concurrence]
93 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Dissent]
93 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
93 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Opinion]
93 WASHINGTON V. DAVIS
[Dissent]
93 CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO.
[Dissent]
93 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
93 LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP.
[Opinion]
93 WIDMAR V. VINCENT
[Opinion]
93 BOOS V. BARRY
[Concurrence]
93 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
93 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]
1000 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
985 C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS
[Syllabus]
Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
978
[Syllabus]
959 SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998)
[Syllabus]
922 ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998)
[Syllabus]
906 UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
903 MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)
[Syllabus]
898 ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
888 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995).
[Syllabus]
883
[Syllabus]
877 CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N.†Y.
[Syllabus]
870 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
865
[Syllabus]
859 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
859 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
849 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.
825 AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
801 STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
796 KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)
[Syllabus]
759 UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION
[Syllabus]
714 CARCIERI V. SALAZAR
[Syllabus]
699 WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
[Syllabus]
699 UNITED STATES V. LARA
[Syllabus]
Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
649 IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
647
[Syllabus]
626 CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT
[Syllabus]
617 IDAHO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
612 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN.
[Syllabus]
Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
592 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
578 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
571 CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998)
[Syllabus]
568
[Syllabus]
547
[Syllabus]
483 SOUTH FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. V.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
483
[Syllabus]
465 BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997).
[Syllabus]
434
[Syllabus]
399 MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS
[Syllabus]
352 NEVADA V. HICKS
[Syllabus]
A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
313 ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO.
[Syllabus]
289 CHICKASAW NATION V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act provision codified at 25 U. S. C. §2719(d)(i) does not exempt tribes from paying the gambling-related taxes imposed by chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code.
287 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
258 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
258 RICE V. CAYETANO
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
222 UNITED STATES V. OLSON
[Syllabus]
222
[Syllabus]
222 UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP.
[Syllabus]
222 BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON
[Syllabus]
216
[Syllabus]
176
[Syllabus]
176 VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMMíN OF MD.
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
166 GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER
[Syllabus]
1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
111 GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
111 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
[Syllabus]
111 EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE
[Syllabus]
111 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
111 CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
111 DADA V. MUKASEY
[Syllabus]
111 BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether sand and gravel are ‚Äúvaluable minerals‚ÄĚ reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
111
[Syllabus]
111 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
111 COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD.
[Syllabus]
111 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
111 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMíN V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY
[Syllabus]
State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
111 KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS
[Syllabus]
Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
111 STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
111 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]