Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean military or cum or martial?

Your query military or ucmj or martial returned 29 results.

	REID V. COVERT [Opinion]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	SCHICK V. REED [Dissent]
	LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SCHICK V. REED [Opinion]
	WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Dissent]
	REID V. COVERT [Concurrence]
	REID V. COVERT [Concurrence]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Syllabus]
	TROP V. DULLES [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Syllabus]
	TROP V. DULLES [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH [Syllabus]
	TROP V. DULLES [Dissent]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Concurrence]
	BAKER V. CARR [Concurrence]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	PRIZE CASES [Dissent]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Syllabus]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Syllabus]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Opinion]
	BAKER V. CARR [Dissent]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Concurrence]
	WALLER V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	SCHICK V. REED [Syllabus]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Opinion]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK []
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	STREET V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Dissent]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. []
	GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT [Concurrence]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Opinion]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Opinion]
	PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON [Opinion]
	TROP V. DULLES [Syllabus]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BARKER V. KANSAS, 503 U.S. 594 (1992) [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 452 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CONROY V. ANISKOFF, 507 U.S. 511 (1993) [Syllabus]
	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?
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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?
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 499 U.S. 160 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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?
	TENET V. DOE [Syllabus]
	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.
	AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. GARDNER, 115 S. CT. 552, 130 L. ED. 2D 462 (1994). [Syllabus]
	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).
	FRANKLIN V. MASSASSACHUSETTS., 505 U.S. 788 (1992). [Syllabus]
	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?
	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.
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DALTON V. SPECTER, 114 S. CT. 1719, 128 L. ED. 2D 497 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA DEP'T OF TAXATION, 509 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.