skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

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

Your query military returned 39 results.

1000 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
889
[Syllabus]
783
[Syllabus]
662
[Syllabus]
662 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
606 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
606
[Syllabus]
573
[Syllabus]
573 RASUL V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
537 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
537 UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
[Syllabus]
495 RUMSFELD V. PADILLA
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
495 UNITED STATES V. DENEDO
[Syllabus]
495 CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH
[Syllabus]
495 LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996).
[Syllabus]
443 STAUB V. PROCTOR HOSPITAL
[Syllabus]
443 EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997).
[Syllabus]
443 UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)
[Syllabus]
382 SNYDER V. PHELPS
[Syllabus]
382 RITA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
382
[Syllabus]
382 WINTER V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL, INC.
[Syllabus]
382 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
301 TENET V. DOE
[Syllabus]
301 HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
Did the court of appeals erred in holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to be an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan?
301 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR ARMEDFORCES OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V.ELAHI
[Syllabus]
191 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.
191 AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997).
[Syllabus]
191 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?
191 SAUCIER V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making an arrest; petitioner, a military police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in arresting respondent.
191
[Syllabus]
191 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.
191 SHINSEKI V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
191
[Syllabus]
191 MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
[Syllabus]
191
[Syllabus]
191
[Syllabus]
191 SAMANTAR V. YOUSUF
[Syllabus]
191 BELL V. CONE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).