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 senate returned 29 results.

1000
[Syllabus]
773 GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
669
[Syllabus]
627 VIETH V. JUBELIRER
[Syllabus]
517 LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997).
[Syllabus]
446 IDAHO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
446 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
352 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMíN
[Syllabus]
352 EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997).
[Syllabus]
352 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
223 NEVADA COMMN ON ETHICS V. CARRIGAN
[Syllabus]
223 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.
223 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC.
[Syllabus]
223 MARRAMA V. CITIZENS BANK OF MASS.
[Syllabus]
223 U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
[Syllabus]
223 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.
223 COOK V. GRALIKE
[Syllabus]
1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
223 UNITED STATES V. HAYES
[Syllabus]
223 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMíN V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM.
[Syllabus]
Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
223 DOE V. REED
[Syllabus]
223
[Syllabus]
223
[Syllabus]
223 HORNE V.FLORES
[Syllabus]
223 MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS
[Syllabus]
223 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
223 TAPIA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
223 NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
223 BARNHART V. SIGMON COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 does not permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign retired miners to the successors in interest of out-of-business coal operators that signed agreements requiring contributions to the 1950 or 1974 Benefits Plans for miners.
223 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY
[Syllabus]