Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query prison or prisoner or inmate returned 290 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]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Dissent]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concurrence]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Dissent]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Concurrence]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	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.
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	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]
	WILSON V. SEITER [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]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	[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.
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	JUREK V. TEXAS [Opinion]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Opinion]
	ABLEMAN V. BOOTH [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Syllabus]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Syllabus]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	POWELL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	TWINING V. STATE [Opinion]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Syllabus]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Syllabus]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	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]
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	FEX V. MICHIGAN, 507 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BUCK V. BELL [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Dissent]
	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?
	EVANS V. CHAVIS [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."
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	REED V. FARLEY, 512 U.S. 339 (1994). [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?
	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.
	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.
	COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Opinion]
	BENTON V. MARYLAND [Concurrence]
	KENTUCKY V. DENNISON [Opinion]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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?
	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.
	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.
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [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.
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	******** [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concurrence]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Syllabus]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Dissent]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Syllabus]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [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."
	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?
	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.
	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?
	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""?
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL [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?
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. ACLU [Opinion]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	SCHICK V. REED [Opinion]
	TWINING V. STATE [Dissent]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Dissent]
	KILBOURN V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	TERRY V. OHIO [Opinion]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. ZANT, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) [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?
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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]
	ARAVE V. CREECH, 507 U.S. 463 (1993). [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.
	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).
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [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.
	DENTON V. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [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]
	GONZALEZ V. CROSBY [Syllabus]
	MU'MIN V. VIRGINIA, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) [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."
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [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?
	LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (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.
	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?
	BAKER V. CARR [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Syllabus]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Opinion]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA [Concurrence]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Opinion]
	******** [Dissent]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Opinion]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	CRIST V. BRETZ [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Opinion]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	MINCEY V. ARIZONA [Concurrence]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Dissent]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. ROSS [Opinion]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Opinion]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG [Opinion]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD [Opinion]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	OHIO V. ROBERTS [Opinion]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Dissent]
	RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS [Dissent]
	ABLEMAN V. BOOTH [Syllabus]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Syllabus]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Opinion]
	IN RE DEBS [Opinion]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Concurrence]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Dissent]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Syllabus]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	ASHE V. SWENSON [Concurrence]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Dissent]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Opinion]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Opinion]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	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]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Opinion]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Opinion]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Opinion]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Dissent]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Dissent]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concurrence]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Concurrence]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Syllabus]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	WHITLEY V. ALBERS [Syllabus]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JUREK V. TEXAS [Opinion]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Opinion]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Opinion]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Dissent]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Opinion]
	ABLEMAN V. BOOTH [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Opinion]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Concurrence]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Opinion]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Opinion]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Syllabus]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Opinion]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	RENO V. ACLU [Opinion]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Syllabus]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Opinion]
	KENTUCKY V. DENNISON [Opinion]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Dissent]
	KILBOURN V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Opinion]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SCHICK V. REED [Dissent]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA [Concurrence]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Opinion]
	POWELL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	TWINING V. STATE [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Dissent]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Concurrence]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Dissent]
	DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN [Dissent]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Opinion]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Dissent]
	MILLER V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	BUCK V. BELL [Opinion]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Dissent]
	BENTON V. MARYLAND [Concurrence]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Concurrence]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concurrence]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Syllabus]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES [Dissent]
	******** [Opinion]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Opinion]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES [Opinion]
	GOMEZ V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Opinion]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Opinion]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Opinion]
	BENTON V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ENMUND V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	BURCH V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Dissent]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Dissent]
	DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN [Opinion]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Concurrence]
	BUMPER V. NORTH CAROLINA [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	TWINING V. STATE [Dissent]
	CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Opinion]
	TERRY V. OHIO [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Opinion]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Dissent]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	SCHICK V. REED [Opinion]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Dissent]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Syllabus]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG [Dissent]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD [Opinion]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Dissent]
	WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS []
	A BOOK NAMED "JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE" V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS [Opinion]
	OSBORNE V. OHIO [Dissent]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Dissent]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Opinion]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Dissent]
	ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. GATHERS [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. ROSS [Opinion]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Dissent]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	STREET V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	MINCEY V. ARIZONA [Concurrence]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Opinion]
	CRIST V. BRETZ [Dissent]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK []
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Dissent]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Opinion]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	******** [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Concurrence]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Dissent]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	GEORGIA V. MCCOLLUM [Opinion]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Opinion]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	IN RE GAULT [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Dissent]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	ASHE V. SWENSON [Concurrence]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Dissent]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Concurrence]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Opinion]
	GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT [Concurrence]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Opinion]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Opinion]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Opinion]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Syllabus]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Opinion]
	JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	RENO V. ACLU [Concurrence]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Concurrence]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Dissent]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Syllabus]
	BENTON V. MARYLAND [Syllabus]
	REID V. COVERT [Concurrence]
	POWERS V. OHIO [Syllabus]
	******** [Dissent]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Syllabus]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	PALKO V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion]
	KENT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BOOTH V. MARYLAND [Dissent]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	OSBORNE V. OHIO [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS [Dissent]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Opinion]
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	IN RE DEBS [Opinion]
	DAVIS V. ALASKA [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JOHNSON V. ZERBST [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	ABLEMAN V. BOOTH [Syllabus]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	OHIO V. ROBERTS [Opinion]