skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

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

Your query relief returned 472 results.

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

1000 SALAZAR V. BUONO
[Syllabus]
974 WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES
[Syllabus]
949 INS V. ST. CYR
[Syllabus]
Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
949 559 U.S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
924 EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
[Syllabus]
An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
895
[Syllabus]
895 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.
895 CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA
[Syllabus]
895 VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996).
[Syllabus]
895 UNITED STATES V. BEAN
[Syllabus]
The absence of an actual denial by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of a felon's petition for relief from firearms disabilities precludes judicial review under 18 U. S. C. §925(c).
895 HORNE V.FLORES
[Syllabus]
895 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."
862 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
862 UNITED STATES V. TOHONO OODHAM NATION
[Syllabus]
862 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
862 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON
[Syllabus]
Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
862 CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N.Y.
[Syllabus]
830 MONSANTO CO. V. GEERTSON SEED FARMS
[Syllabus]
830
[Syllabus]
830 LOS ANGELES COUNTY V. HUMPHRIES
[Syllabus]
830 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
790 GONZALEZ V. CROSBY
[Syllabus]
790
[Syllabus]
790 SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN
[Syllabus]
790 HARRIS TRUST AND SAV. BANK V. SALOMONSMITH BARNEY INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether a non-fiduciary party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan that engages in a prohibited transaction, as defined in Section 406(a) (1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (""ERISA""), 29 U.S.C. 1106(a)(1), with the plan can be sued under ERISA 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), for ""appropriate equitable relief,"" including restitution."
790 WILKINSON V. DOTSON
[Syllabus]
790 HARRINGTON V. RICHTER
[Syllabus]
790 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""?
747 STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
747 AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997).
[Syllabus]
747 IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
747 ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
700 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
700
[Syllabus]
700 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
700 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
700 MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
700 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE
[Syllabus]
700 NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998)
[Syllabus]
700 SMITH V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
700 FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996).
[Syllabus]
700 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
700 BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY
[Syllabus]
700 WINTER V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL, INC.
[Syllabus]
700
[Syllabus]
646
[Syllabus]
646 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?"
646
[Syllabus]
646 HIBBS V. WINN
[Syllabus]
646 UNITED STATES V. DENEDO
[Syllabus]
646
[Syllabus]
646 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.
646
[Syllabus]
646 CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH
[Syllabus]
646
[Syllabus]
646 KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE
[Syllabus]
646 UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
646 SOLE V. WYNER
[Syllabus]
646 GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996)
[Syllabus]
646 CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY
[Syllabus]
Respondent did not state an actionable claim when she alleged that she was denied access to courts by Government officials, who intentionally deceived her in concealing information that her husband had been tortured and killed by the Guatemalan army.
646 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.
646
[Syllabus]
646
[Syllabus]
646 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
646 PREMO V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
646 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
646
[Syllabus]
646 LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
646 NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995)
[Syllabus]
646 CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C.
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
646 RILEY V. KENNEDY
[Syllabus]
577 DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC.
[Syllabus]
577
[Syllabus]
577 EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
[Syllabus]
577 RENICO V. LETT
[Syllabus]
577 BREWER V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
577 DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
577 CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998)
[Syllabus]
577 WALKER V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
577 UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. V. ESPINOSA
[Syllabus]
577 QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996)
[Syllabus]
577 CONE V. BELL
[Syllabus]
577 MILLER-EL V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
577
[Syllabus]
577 UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE
[Syllabus]
Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
577 SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990)
[Syllabus]
577
[Syllabus]
577 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."
577 VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMMN OF MD.
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
577
[Syllabus]
577 MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998)
[Syllabus]
577 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
577
[Syllabus]
577 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
577 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
577 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?
577 MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD.
[Syllabus]
577 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
577 ARTUZ V. BENNETT
[Syllabus]
Is a state court post-conviction application ""properly filed"" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2), which tolls the one-year statute of limitations for Habeas corpus petitions in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if it is filed in a court that does not have the power to hear the merits of the application?"
577 ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498 SCHAFFER V. WEAST
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498 BELL V. CONE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
498 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
498 CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND V. STRUMPF, 516 U.S. 16 (1995).
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
[Syllabus]
498 SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N. A.
[Syllabus]
A complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, but instead must contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
498 EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998)
[Syllabus]
498 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?
498 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?
498 PACE V. DIGUGLIELMO
[Syllabus]
498 GRATZ V. BOLLINGER
[Syllabus]
1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
498
[Syllabus]
498 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498 561 U.S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
498 VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498 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?
498
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
[Syllabus]
498 MICKENS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
In order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where the trial court fails to inquire into defense counsel's potential conflict of interest about which the court knew or reasonably should have known, the defendant must establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance.
498
[Syllabus]
498 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.
498 UTAH V. EVANS
[Syllabus]
The Census Bureau's use of "hot-deck imputation" to fill in gaps in census information and resolve conflicts in the data does not violate 13 U. S. C. §195, which forbids use of "the statistical method known as 'sampling' " in determining population for purposes of apportioning congressional Representatives, and is not inconsistent with the Constitution's Census Clause, which requires an "actual Enumeration" of each State's population.
498 TYLER V. CAIN
[Syllabus]
The rule in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39-that a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt-was not "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court," within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(2)(A).
498 KUCANA V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
498 ALABAMA V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
498 WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD
[Syllabus]
498 WALL V. KHOLI
[Syllabus]
498 PADILLA V. KENTUCKY
[Syllabus]
498 PENRY V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
The jury instructions at Penry's resentencing for capital murder did not comply with the Court's mandate in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302; the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
498 JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER
[Syllabus]
498 KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
498 SOUTH CAROLINA V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
498 LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990)
[Syllabus]
498 ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA
[Syllabus]
Whether trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to file a notice of appeal following a guilty plea in the absence a request by the defendant, particularly where the defendant has been advised of his appeal rights.
498 PEACOCK V. THOMAS, 516 U.S. 349 (1996).
[Syllabus]
498 POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
[Syllabus]
Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
498 MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995).
[Syllabus]
498
[Syllabus]
393 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMN V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY
[Syllabus]
State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
393 STRICKLER V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393 KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. V. LASTINGIMPRESSION I, INC.
[Syllabus]
393 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?
393 MISSOURI V. JENKINS, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
[Syllabus]
393 REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES V. PIMENTEL
[Syllabus]
393 GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995).
[Syllabus]
393 BROWN V. PAYTON
[Syllabus]
393 BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993).
[Syllabus]
393 DOE V. REED
[Syllabus]
393 ERIE V. PAPS A. M.
[Syllabus]
Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
393 FREW V. HAWKINS
[Syllabus]
This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
393 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
393 WEEKS V. ANGELONE
[Syllabus]
1. Is there any ""compelling"" reason to review the Fourth Circuit's application of this Court's recent decision in Buchannan V. Angelone, 118 S. Ct. 757 (1998), to the facts of petitioner's case, which are substantially indistinguishable from those in Buchanan?"
393 EVANS V. CHAVIS
[Syllabus]
393 BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996).
[Syllabus]
393 SCARBOROUGH V. PRINCIPI
[Syllabus]
Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
393
[Syllabus]
393 NKEN V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
393 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 514 U.S. 527 (1995).
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996)
[Syllabus]
393 AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG.
[Syllabus]
393 FRY V. PLILER
[Syllabus]
393 ROPER V. SIMMONS
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393 LEXECON INC. V. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH 523 U.S. 26 (1998)
[Syllabus]
393 BERGHUIS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
393 BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME, INC. V. WESTVIRGINIA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
[Syllabus]
The "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
393 BOBBY V. BIES
[Syllabus]
393 WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995).
[Syllabus]
393 DADA V. MUKASEY
[Syllabus]
393 RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS
[Syllabus]
393 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)
[Syllabus]
393 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
[Syllabus]
393 KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN.
[Syllabus]
393 GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393 WEST V. GIBSON
[Syllabus]
393 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.
393 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
393 YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether, in applying the objective test for a "custody" determination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a court must consider the age and experience of a person if he or she is a juvenile? (2) Whether a state court adjudication can be deemed an "objectively unreasonable" application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), because it declines to "extend" the rule of a Supreme Court precedent to a new context.
393 OSULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393 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).
393
[Syllabus]
393 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
393 SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
393 SORRELL V. IMS HEALTH INC.
[Syllabus]
393 PRICE V. VINCENT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court did not direct a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review. 2. Whether Defendant Vincent was twice placed in jeopardy by the action of the trial court in first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first degree murder, and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, where both the initial decision and its recall occurred out of the presence of the jury. 3. Whether this Court should grant certiorari to clarify the jurisprudence where there is a split of opinion within the United States Courts of Appeals and within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and State Courts on the question of whether double jeopardy principles were violated in factually similar situations.
393 BARNES V. GORMAN
[Syllabus]
Punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under §202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
393 NEGUSIE V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
393 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
393 WIGGINS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
393 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.
393
[Syllabus]
393 VIETH V. JUBELIRER
[Syllabus]
393 BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997)
[Syllabus]
393 HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB
[Syllabus]
Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
393 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
393 BEARD V. KINDLER
[Syllabus]
393 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)
[Syllabus]
393 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.
393 CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
393 MARRAMA V. CITIZENS BANK OF MASS.
[Syllabus]
393 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
393 LINDH V. MURPHY, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 2059, 138 L.ED.2D 481 (1997).
[Syllabus]
393 UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998)
[Syllabus]
393 STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998)
[Syllabus]
393 NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS
[Syllabus]
Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
393 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?
393 GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
393 BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997)
[Syllabus]
393 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393
[Syllabus]
393 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA
[Syllabus]
393 AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
393 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY
[Syllabus]
393 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
393 RAGSDALE V. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC.
[Syllabus]
A Labor Department regulation requiring an employer to grant an additional 12 weeks of leave to an employee who has not been informed that a previous absence would be counted as part of the 12 weeks of leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is contrary to the Act and beyond the Labor Secretary's authority.
393
[Syllabus]
393 LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997)
[Syllabus]
393 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?
249 KRUPSKI V. COSTA CROCIERE S.P.A.
[Syllabus]
249 BRIDGE V. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO.
[Syllabus]
249 TENNARD V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
249 MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996).
[Syllabus]
249 14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT
[Syllabus]
249 NASA V. FLRA
[Syllabus]
249 HALBERT V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
249 TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN
[Syllabus]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
249
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249 FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 HARBISON V. BELL
[Syllabus]
249 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996)
[Syllabus]
249 LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996).
[Syllabus]
249 FORNEY V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 266 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249
[Syllabus]
249 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
249 BURDICK V. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 NORTON V. SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
[Syllabus]
Whether the authority of the federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" extends to the review of the adequacy of an agency's ongoing management of public lands under general statutory standards and its own land use plans?
249 MACS SHELL SERVICE, INC. V.SHELL OILPRODUCTS CO.
[Syllabus]
249 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 JIMENEZ V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE
[Syllabus]
249 CAREY V. MUSLADIN
[Syllabus]
249 RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249 FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DIST. V. T. A.
[Syllabus]
249 LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997)
[Syllabus]
249 UNITED STATES V. NOLAND, 517 U.S. 535 (1996)
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 LONCHAR V. THOMAS, WARDEN, 517 U.S. 314 (1996).
[Syllabus]
249 HAMILTON V. LANNING
[Syllabus]
249 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALA. V. RANDOLPH
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a ""final decision with respect to an arbitration"" appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16 (a) (3). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that arbitration provision that was ""silent"" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights."
249 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. GLENN
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 SCHWAB V. REILLY
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 SHAW V. HUNT, 116 S.CT. 1894, 135 L.ED.2D 207 (1996)
[Syllabus]
249 MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC.
[Syllabus]
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution; the evidence in this case is insufficient to support summary judgment for respondents on the dilution count.
249 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD.
[Syllabus]
249 HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 HOLLAND V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
249 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]
249 HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
Did the court of appeals erred in holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to be an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan?
249 KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990)
[Syllabus]
249 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]
249 AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 558 U.S. ____ (2009)
[Syllabus]
249 TENNESSEE V. LANE
[Syllabus]
Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
249 TAYLOR V. STURGELL
[Syllabus]
249 HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 LEWIS V. CHICAGO
[Syllabus]
249 MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 SMITH V. SPISAK
[Syllabus]
249 RICE V. COLLINS
[Syllabus]
249 CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD.
[Syllabus]
249 UNITED STATES V. LOCKE
[Syllabus]
Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
249 STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 ANDERSON V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 143 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
249 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE
[Syllabus]
Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
249 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?
249 DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED.
[Syllabus]
249 CALCANO-MARTINEZ V. INS
[Syllabus]
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 precludes courts of appeals from exercising jurisdiction to review a final removal order against aliens removable by reason of aggravated felony convictions, but such aliens may pursue habeas relief in the district court.
249 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP.
[Syllabus]
249 GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 DAVIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
249 KELO V. NEW LONDON
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 HAYWOOD V. DROWN
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 DODD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
249 SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON
[Syllabus]
249 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. V. HIF BIO, INC.
[Syllabus]
249 SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC.
[Syllabus]
249 FIORE V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
Whether a state can flaunt the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and evade federal habeas corpus relief for an incontestably innocent prisoner by claiming that an appellate decision constitutes ""new law,"" when in fact the state did not and could not prove a key element of the crime at trial? 3. Whether federal habeas relief should be extended to protect federal constitutional rights when a state refuses to retroactively apply a case which based its decision on the already existing clear language of the statute?
249
[Syllabus]
249 BRADSHAW V. STUMPF
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 RANSOM V. FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.
[Syllabus]
249 FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM.
[Syllabus]
249 BELL V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
249 UNITED STATES V. EURODIF S.A.
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249 HINCK V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
249 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC.
[Syllabus]
249 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
249 VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON
[Syllabus]
249 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS
[Syllabus]
Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
249 CLINGMAN V. BEAVER
[Syllabus]
249 ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO. V. TOWNSEND
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 DEMORE V. KIM
[Syllabus]
Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
249
[Syllabus]
249 CENTRAL GREEN CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Flood Control Act of 1928 immunizes Respondent from his suit?"
249 BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER
[Syllabus]
249 TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD.
[Syllabus]
249 AYERS V. BELMONTES
[Syllabus]
249 RHINES V. WEBER
[Syllabus]
249 ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
249 AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI
[Syllabus]
California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
249
[Syllabus]
249 INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249
[Syllabus]
249 MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING
[Syllabus]
249 BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996)
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1
[Syllabus]
249 UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABISBUYERS COOPERATIVE
[Syllabus]
There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 BROWN V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
249 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."
249 ABBOTT V. ABBOTT
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249
[Syllabus]
249 KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997).
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249 WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
[Syllabus]
249 REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN
[Syllabus]
Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
249 TREST V. CAIN, 522 U.S. 87 (1997)
[Syllabus]
249 BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP
[Syllabus]
249 WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. CARLISLE
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249
[Syllabus]
249 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
249 BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG
[Syllabus]
249 HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH
[Syllabus]
249 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
249 CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION
[Syllabus]
Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
249
[Syllabus]
249 GONZALES V. RAICH
[Syllabus]
249 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERV. V. YUEH SHAIO YANG, 519 U.S. 26 (1996)
[Syllabus]
249 TRW INC. V. ANDREWS
[Syllabus]
The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
249 LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997).
[Syllabus]
249 YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997).
[Syllabus]
249 FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT. V. UNITED REPORTINGPUBLISHING CORP.
[Syllabus]
Whether the government violates the First Amendment when it releases records but forbids their commercial use?
249 DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
249 SHALALA V. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONGTERM CARE, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether 42 U.S.C. 405H(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to obtain judicial review under 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) to challenge the validity of Medicare regulations.
249 SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990)
[Syllabus]
249 LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC.
[Syllabus]
The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
249 BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997).
[Syllabus]
249 FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
249 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249 UNITED STATES V. HATTER
[Syllabus]
The judgment below is reversed insofar as the Federal Circuit found that the application of Medicare taxes to the salaries of federal judges taking office before 1983 violated the Compensation Clause, but affirmed insofar as that court found the application of Social Security taxes to the salaries of judges taking office before 1984 unconstitutional; a 1984 salary increase received by federal judges did not cure the latter violation.
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO.
[Syllabus]
249 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI
[Syllabus]
Where freelance authors' articles in print periodicals were republished in electronic databases without the authors' consent, the copying was not authorized by the reproduction privilege afforded collective works publishers under §201(c) of the Copyright Act.
249
[Syllabus]
249 ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
249 CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
249 ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN
[Syllabus]
249 MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.
[Syllabus]
249 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.
249 VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC.
[Syllabus]
What must be shown to establish that a product's design is inherently distinctive for purposes of Lanham Act trade-dress protection?"
249 BOND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
249 KONTRICK V. RYAN
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MFRS. OFAMERICA V. WALSH
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
249 PERDUE V. KENNY A.
[Syllabus]
249 BOWLES V. RUSSELL
[Syllabus]
249 UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P. A.V. ALLSTATE INS. CO.
[Syllabus]
249 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN
[Syllabus]
A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
249
[Syllabus]
249 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NOV.HOLDER
[Syllabus]
249 STERN V. MARSHALL
[Syllabus]
249 WILKINSON V. AUSTIN
[Syllabus]
249 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS
[Syllabus]
249 562 U.S. ____ (2011)
[Syllabus]
249 DOE V. CHAO
[Syllabus]
249 SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
249 DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992).
[Syllabus]
249 UTTECHT V. BROWN
[Syllabus]
249 DUNCAN V. WALKER
[Syllabus]
A federal habeas petition is not an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" within 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2)'s meaning, so that provision did not toll the limitation period for filing respondent's second federal habeas petition during the pendency of his first federal habeas petition.
249
[Syllabus]
249 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
249 BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998)
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995).
[Syllabus]
249 LAPIDES V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYSTEMOF GA.
[Syllabus]
A State waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.
249
[Syllabus]
249
[Syllabus]
249 SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995).
[Syllabus]