skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

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

Did you mean publicity or privacy and Right?

Your query publicity or (privacy and right) returned 27 results.

1000 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
971 DOE V. BOLTON
[Concurrence]
968 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Opinion]
945 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Opinion]
913 WHALEN V. ROE
[Opinion]
910 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Opinion]
910 ROE V. WADE
[Opinion]
907 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Dissent]
887 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Concurrence]
878 MAPP V. OHIO
[Opinion]
867 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Opinion]
858 CALIFORNIA V. CIRAOLO
[Dissent]
850 OLIVER V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
844 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
844 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
838 WARDEN V. HAYDEN
[Dissent]
835 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
832 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
832 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
829 OLIVER V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
827 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Opinion]
815 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Dissent]
806 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Opinion]
801 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
801 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
795 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Dissent]
789 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
789 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
786 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
780 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
778 MAHER V. ROE
[Dissent]
775 UNITED STATES V. ROSS
[Opinion]
769 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Opinion]
760 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
760 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES
[Opinion]
757 CALIFORNIA V. GREENWOOD
[Dissent]
755 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Concurrence]
755 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Opinion]
752 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
737 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Dissent]
729 MAHER V. ROE
[Opinion]
729 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
726 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
726 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
723 NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMIN. V. FAVISH
[Syllabus]
The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
723 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Dissent]
723 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Dissent]
711 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO.
[Opinion]
708 KATZ V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
708 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
703 WALLER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
691 NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART
[Concurrence]
688 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
688 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
688 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
685 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Opinion]
685 STANLEY V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
680 DOE V. BOLTON
[Opinion]
677 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
677 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
677 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
674 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Dissent]
674 CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE
[Opinion]
671 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Dissent]
668 CALIFORNIA V. CARNEY
[Dissent]
668 IN RE GAULT
[Opinion]
665 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Dissent]
659 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Opinion]
659 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
648 CALIFORNIA V. GREENWOOD
[Opinion]
645 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Dissent]
642 UNITED STATES V. MATLOCK
[Dissent]
642 WARDEN V. HAYDEN
[Opinion]
636 WHALEN V. ROE
[Concurrence]
631 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
631 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Dissent]
628 ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA
[Opinion]
625 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
625 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Dissent]
625 ROE V. WADE
[Concurrence]
625 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
622 SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ
[Opinion]
619 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Opinion]
619 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
619 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
619 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Opinion]
613 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Opinion]
613 KATZ V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
613 NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
[Dissent]
613 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Dissent]
613 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
613 MAPP V. OHIO
[Dissent]
602 UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA
[Opinion]
596
[Syllabus]
596 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
596 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
596 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
596 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Syllabus]
587 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Opinion]
587 GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
579 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Dissent]
576 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Opinion]
576 ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY
[Opinion]
567 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Concurrence]
564 CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
[Syllabus]
564 CALIFORNIA V. CIRAOLO
[Opinion]
564 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Syllabus]
564 ********
[Opinion]
561 OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
556 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
556 ERZNOZNIK V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
[Opinion]
556 NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART
[Opinion]
556 WASHINGTON V. CHRISMAN
[Opinion]
556 ROWAN V. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Opinion]
550 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
550 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Opinion]
544 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
544 CALIFORNIA V. CARNEY
[Opinion]
544 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. PATTERSON
[Opinion]
536 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
536 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
536 UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[Opinion]
536 MALLOY V. HOGAN
[Dissent]
530 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Opinion]
530 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Opinion]
527 ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA
[Dissent]
524
[Syllabus]
524 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
524 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
521 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Concurrence]
521 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
521 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
521 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Opinion]
515 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
515 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
515 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Opinion]
512 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
512 THORNHILL V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
512 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
512 ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES
[Concurrence]
512 BUTZ V. ECONOMOU
[Opinion]
510 CONNICK V. MYERS
[Dissent]
510 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
510 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
507 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT
[Opinion]
507 DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA
[Dissent]
507 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Opinion]
495 ********
[Dissent]
487 FCC V. AT&T INC.
[Syllabus]
487 IN RE PRIMUS
[Opinion]
487 LEHMAN V. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS
[Dissent]
487 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE
[Opinion]
487 ROE V. WADE
[Dissent]
487 TERRY V. OHIO
[Opinion]
487 ********
[Opinion]
487 ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY
[Dissent]
478 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
478 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
478 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Syllabus]
478 TERRY V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
472 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Opinion]
472 CONNICK V. MYERS
[Opinion]
472 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Dissent]
466 GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
[Dissent]
466 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
466 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Dissent]
466 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
461 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concurrence]
455 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
455 NEW YORK V. CLASS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
455 NEW YORK V. CLASS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
455 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
455 GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
455 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
443 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Dissent]
435 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Concurrence]
435 LEHMAN V. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS
[Concurrence]
435 MALLOY V. HOGAN
[Opinion]
435 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Dissent]
435 ********
[Concurrence]
429 CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT
[Opinion]
429 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 SOUTH DAKOTA V. OPPERMAN
[Dissent]
429 COHEN V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
429 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
429 CHAMBERS V. MARONEY
[Opinion]
429 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concurrence]
429 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Dissent]
429 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 SOUTH DAKOTA V. OPPERMAN
[Concurrence]
414 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Opinion]
414 HUTCHINSON V. PROXMIRE
[Opinion]
414 GREER V. SPOCK
[Dissent]
414 AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC.
[Opinion]
414 BROWN V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
414 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
414 CHAMBERS V. MARONEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
414 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
414 CHAMBERS V. MARONEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
414 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Concurrence]
397 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Dissent]
397 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Syllabus]
397 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Syllabus]
397 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Dissent]
397 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
397 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
397 HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Dissent]
397 ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA
[Concurrence]
386
[Syllabus]
386 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Dissent]
386 HUSTLER MAGAZINE, INC. V. FALWELL
[Opinion]
386 UNITED STATES V. NIXON
[Opinion]
386 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Dissent]
386 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
386 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Syllabus]
386 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Concurrence]
377 DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
377 MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
377 GONZAGA UNIV. V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
377 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Syllabus]
377 UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA
[Dissent]
377 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Dissent]
377 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
377 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
377 GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
377 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Syllabus]
357 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Concurrence]
357 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Syllabus]
357 RENO V. ACLU
[Opinion]
357 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
357 WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
[Concurrence]
357 UNITED STATES V. KAHN
[Opinion]
354 SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING
[Syllabus]
354 WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON
[Syllabus]
A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
354 MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ
[Dissent]
354 LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO
[Opinion]
354 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
354 GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
[Opinion]
354 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Opinion]
354 MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO.
[Dissent]
354 ADAMS V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
354 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Concurrence]
354 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Concurrence]
328 BARTNICKI V. VOPPER
[Syllabus]
Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
328 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Syllabus]
328 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Concurrence]
328 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Dissent]
328 WASHINGTON V. CHRISMAN
[Syllabus]
328 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Opinion]
328 GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
328 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Dissent]
328 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Syllabus]
328 WARD V. ROCK AGAINST RACISM
[Opinion]
328 ROE V. WADE
[Syllabus]
328 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Concurrence]
328 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Opinion]
328 MATHEWS V. LUCAS
[Opinion]
328 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Dissent]
328 WHALEN V. ROE
[Concurrence]
314 BRINEGAR V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
314 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Syllabus]
314 THORNHILL V. ALABAMA
[Syllabus]
314 HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER
[Dissent]
296 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES
[Syllabus]
Whether California's new blanket primary law-- which allows voters of any political affiliation to cross party lines at will and to participate in the selection of other parties nominees-- violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Whether the associational rights of political parties are afforded less protection under the First Amendment than the associational rights of other private associations."
296 ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA
[Syllabus]
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
296 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
296 GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
[Dissent]
296 CALIFORNIA V. CIRAOLO
[Syllabus]
296 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Dissent]
296 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
296 UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[Concurrence]
296 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
296 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES
[Syllabus]
296 ********
[Syllabus]
296 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
296 SOUTH DAKOTA V. OPPERMAN
[Opinion]
296 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
296 OHIO V. ROBINETTE
[Concurrence]
256
[Syllabus]
256 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
256 MAHER V. ROE
[Syllabus]
256 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Syllabus]
256 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Concurrence]
256 BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC.
[Concurrence]
256 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Opinion]
256 EDWARDS V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
256 DOE V. BOLTON
[Syllabus]
256 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
256 ROTH V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
256 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Dissent]
256 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Opinion]
256 WHALEN V. ROE
[Syllabus]
256 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Concurrence]
256 ROTH V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
256 BRANDENBURG V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
256 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Opinion]
256 SHELTON V. TUCKER
[Dissent]
198
[Syllabus]
198 BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
198
[Syllabus]
198 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Concurrence]
198 NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART
[Concurrence]
198 NEW YORK V. CLASS
[Concurrence]
198 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
198 BROWN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
198 STANLEY V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
198 OHIO V. ROBINETTE
[Dissent]
198 UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA
[Syllabus]
198 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Concurrence]
198 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Concurrence]
198 CRAIG V. BOREN
[Opinion]
198 ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA
[Dissent]
198 UNITED STATES V. MATLOCK
[Dissent]
198 IN RE PRIMUS
[Syllabus]
198 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
198 GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
198 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Syllabus]
1000 NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMIN. V. FAVISH
[Syllabus]
The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
916 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
916
[Syllabus]
824
[Syllabus]
780 CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
[Syllabus]
741 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
725
[Syllabus]
673 FCC V. AT&T INC.
[Syllabus]
629 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
533
[Syllabus]
521 GONZAGA UNIV. V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
521 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Syllabus]
521 MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
521 DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
490 SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING
[Syllabus]
490 WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON
[Syllabus]
A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
454 BARTNICKI V. VOPPER
[Syllabus]
Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
410 ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA
[Syllabus]
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
410 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES
[Syllabus]
Whether California's new blanket primary law-- which allows voters of any political affiliation to cross party lines at will and to participate in the selection of other parties nominees-- violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Whether the associational rights of political parties are afforded less protection under the First Amendment than the associational rights of other private associations."
410 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
354
[Syllabus]
354 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
274 SNYDER V. PHELPS
[Syllabus]
274
[Syllabus]
274 BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
274 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
274
[Syllabus]