Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query prison or prisoner or inmate returned 153 results.

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

	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Dissent]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Opinion]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Opinion]
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Opinion]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Opinion]
	PORTER V. NUSSLE [Syllabus] The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concurrence]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Dissent]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Concurrence]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	BOOTH V. CHURNER [Syllabus] Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. MURPHY [Syllabus] Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
	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?
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996) [Syllabus]
	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.
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Opinion]
	WILSON V. SEITER, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SCHICK V. REED [Dissent]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Syllabus]
	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.
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	JUREK V. TEXAS [Opinion]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Opinion]
	ABLEMAN V. BOOTH [Opinion]
	CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO [Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
	LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Syllabus]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Syllabus]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	POWELL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	TWINING V. STATE [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Syllabus]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. BOZEMAN [Syllabus] The literal language of Art. IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers-which provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for trial must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it returns him to his original place of imprisonment prior to that trial, charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e)-bars further criminal proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of imprisonment before trial.
	WILKINSON V. DOTSON [Syllabus]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Dissent]
	FEX V. MICHIGAN, 507 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Dissent]
	BUCK V. BELL [Opinion]
	PLILER V. FORD [Syllabus] (1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?
	SLACK V. MCDANIEL [Syllabus] If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
	WOODFORD V. GARCEAU [Syllabus] For purposes of applying the rule in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, a case does not become "pending" until an actual application for habeas relief is filed in federal court; respondent's application is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 because it was not filed until after AEDPA's effective date.
	REED V. FARLEY, 512 U.S. 339 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EVANS V. CHAVIS [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. HILL [Syllabus] Does a defendant's express agreement to a trial date beyond the 180-day period required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers constitute a waiver of his right to trial within such period?
	BENTON V. MARYLAND [Concurrence]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Opinion]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	KENTUCKY V. DENNISON [Opinion]
	CAREY V. SAFFOLD [Syllabus] As used in 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), which tolls the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions while a petition for state collateral relief is "pending," the term "pending" covers the time between a lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court; that rule applies to California's collateral review system; and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the question whether respondent's state petition was timely filed.
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GARNER  V.  JONES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
	LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA [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?
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL [Syllabus] The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	******** [Opinion]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concurrence]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Syllabus]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Opinion]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Dissent]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Syllabus]
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
	BALDWIN V. REESE [Syllabus] By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Court had held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner alert the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when -- in that court--he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
	GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL [Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. HADIX [Syllabus]
	LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
	NELSON V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
	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?
	EDWARDS V. CARPENTER [Syllabus] Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Opinion]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Dissent]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Opinion]
	RENO V. ACLU [Opinion]
	TWINING V. STATE [Dissent]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Syllabus]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	KILBOURN V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	SCHICK V. REED [Opinion]
	TERRY V. OHIO [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	GONZALEZ V. CROSBY [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
	LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BECKER V. MONTGOMERY [Syllabus] When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
	MAYLE V. FELIX [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DENTON V. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ARAVE V. CREECH, 507 U.S. 463 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LOCKYER V. ANDRADE [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Andrade's sentence for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	MCCLESKEY V. ZANT, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CLAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
	MU'MIN V. VIRGINIA, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON [Syllabus] Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
	DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	ROELL V. WITHROW [Syllabus] When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
	DRETKE V. HALEY [Syllabus] Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BANKS V. DRETKE [Syllabus] In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
	MAPP V. OHIO [Dissent]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG [Opinion]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Syllabus]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ABLEMAN V. BOOTH [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Opinion]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA [Concurrence]
	OHIO V. ROBERTS [Opinion]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Syllabus]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Opinion]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Opinion]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Opinion]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Concurrence]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. [Dissent]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	******** [Dissent]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. ROSS [Opinion]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Opinion]
	CRIST V. BRETZ [Dissent]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	ASHE V. SWENSON [Concurrence]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Opinion]
	IN RE DEBS [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS [Dissent]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Dissent]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Opinion]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD [Opinion]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Syllabus]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Syllabus]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Opinion]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Opinion]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	MINCEY V. ARIZONA [Concurrence]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Syllabus]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Opinion]
	PORTER V. NUSSLE [Syllabus] The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. MURPHY [Syllabus] Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
	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?
	BOOTH V. CHURNER [Syllabus] Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
	WILSON V. SEITER, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. BOZEMAN [Syllabus] The literal language of Art. IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers-which provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for trial must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it returns him to his original place of imprisonment prior to that trial, charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e)-bars further criminal proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of imprisonment before trial.
	CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO [Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. DOTSON [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. HADIX [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
	UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON [Syllabus] Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
	FEX V. MICHIGAN, 507 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	REED V. FARLEY, 512 U.S. 339 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	EVANS V. CHAVIS [Syllabus]
	NELSON V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DENTON V. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). [Syllabus]
	DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ROELL V. WITHROW [Syllabus] When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LOCKYER V. ANDRADE [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Andrade's sentence for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	BECKER V. MONTGOMERY [Syllabus] When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
	BANKS V. DRETKE [Syllabus] In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
	MU'MIN V. VIRGINIA, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ARAVE V. CREECH, 507 U.S. 463 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S 322 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. SHELTON [Syllabus] Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
	MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SLACK V. MCDANIEL [Syllabus] If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. HILL [Syllabus] Does a defendant's express agreement to a trial date beyond the 180-day period required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers constitute a waiver of his right to trial within such period?
	MILLER V. FRENCH [Syllabus] The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
	PLILER V. FORD [Syllabus] (1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?
	WOODFORD V. GARCEAU [Syllabus] For purposes of applying the rule in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, a case does not become "pending" until an actual application for habeas relief is filed in federal court; respondent's application is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 because it was not filed until after AEDPA's effective date.
	STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL [Syllabus] The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	GARNER  V.  JONES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
	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?
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 544 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. SAFFOLD [Syllabus] As used in 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), which tolls the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions while a petition for state collateral relief is "pending," the term "pending" covers the time between a lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court; that rule applies to California's collateral review system; and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the question whether respondent's state petition was timely filed.
	LOGAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. CARPENTER [Syllabus] Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
	BROWN V. PAYTON [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?
	[Syllabus]
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BEGAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	BALDWIN V. REESE [Syllabus] By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Court had held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner alert the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when -- in that court--he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
	GLOVER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILSON, 503 U.S. 329 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ [Syllabus]
	O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CUSTIS V. UNITED STATES, 114 S. CT. 1732, 128 L. ED. 2D 517 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CLAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. MUSLADIN [Syllabus]
	ROWLAND V. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 738 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MCCLESKEY V. ZANT, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LEE V. KEMNA [Syllabus] Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
	DEAL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 129 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DRETKE V. HALEY [Syllabus] Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
	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?
	UNITED STATES V. GRANDERSON, 511 U.S. 39 (1994). [Syllabus]
	POWERS V. OHIO, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	AYERS V. BELMONTES [Syllabus]
	SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MAYLE V. FELIX [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
	GONZALEZ V. CROSBY [Syllabus]
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ [Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [Syllabus]
	TREST V. CAIN, 522 U.S. 87 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GOZLON-PERETZ V. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 395 (1991) [Syllabus]
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	RENO V. KORAY, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SMALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	COLLINS V. YOUNGBLOOD, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. LUCAS, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). [Syllabus]
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	WHORTON V. BOCKTING [Syllabus]
	SIMMONS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 512 U.S. 154 (1994). [Syllabus]
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	RATZLAF V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 135 (1994). [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	GALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]