Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query time returned 1654 results.

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

	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Dissent]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Concurrence]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Syllabus]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Opinion]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Dissent]
	TIME, INC. V. FIRESTONE [Dissent]
	BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO.,, 516 U.S. 152 (1996) [Syllabus]
	KONTRICK V. RYAN [Syllabus]
	IBP, INC. V. ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY [Syllabus] Whether a public agency governed by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 207 (o), may absent a preexisting agreement, require its employees to use accrued compensatory time."
	[Syllabus]
	JIMENEZ V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	EVANS V. CHAVIS [Syllabus]
	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.
	MAYLE V. FELIX [Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WALKER V. MARTIN [Syllabus]
	MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. [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.
	BARBER V. THOMAS [Syllabus]
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BLOATE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GRUPO DATAFLUX V. ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, L. P. [Syllabus] (1) Did the court of appeals err by creating a new exception to the longstanding rule that diversity jurisdiction must be determined based on a party's citizenship and circumstances as they existed at the time suit was filed? (2) Did the court of appeals err by allowing a unilateral change in a party's citizenship during the course of litigation to create diversity jurisdiction that did not exist at the time suit was filed?
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. TINKLENBERG [Syllabus]
	STOGNER V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] 1. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations requirement, which historically comprised an element of the crimes charged, so as to charge Petitioner retroactively, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? 2. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the Statute of limitations arbitrarily retract a liberty interest the state had conferred on Petitioner?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PLATA [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL ED. AND RESEARCH V.UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	RENO V. KORAY, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES  V.  UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Because the enactment of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 qualified as a repudiation, rather than a present breach, of the immediate-prepayment provision of petitioners' loan agreements with the Farmers Home Administration, breach would occur, and 28 U. S. C. §2501's six-year limitations period would commence to run, when a borrower tenders prepayment and the Government then dishonors its obligation to accept the tender and release its control over use of the property securing the loan.
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CONKRIGHT V. FROMMERT [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE [Syllabus] An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	DOLE FOOD CO. V. PATRICKSON [Syllabus] Whether a corporation in which a foreign sovereign controls a majority of the shares indirectly through ownership of the corporation’s ultimate parent may qualify as a foriegn state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunitities Act
	AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN [Syllabus]
	STERN V. MARSHALL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 654 (1996). [Syllabus]
	PACE V. DIGUGLIELMO [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CATERPILLAR INC. V. LEWIS, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) [Syllabus]
	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.
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVS.V. BLUMER [Syllabus] The Wisconsin Medicaid statute's "income-first" prescription requiring that potential income transfers from an institutionalized spouse to her spouse living at home be considered in determining whether to increase the latter's "Community Spouse Resource Allowance" is a permissible interpretation of the federal Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.
	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."
	UNITED STATES V. BANKS [Syllabus] Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
	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.
	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?
	LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. KATO [Syllabus]
	VERMONT V. BRILLON [Syllabus]
	LEE V. KEMNA [Syllabus] Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
	CHASE BANK USA, N. A. V. MCCOY [Syllabus]
	MV. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ROELL V. WITHROW [Syllabus] When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
	[Syllabus]
	U.S. V. BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC. [Syllabus] Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROTHGERY V. GILLESPIE COUNTY [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. [Syllabus]
	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.
	KASTEN V. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP. [Syllabus]
	SELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CARMELL V. TEXAS [Syllabus] Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
	[Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOWLES V. RUSSELL [Syllabus]
	SNYDER V. PHELPS [Syllabus]
	CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES [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.
	[Syllabus]
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CARCIERI V. SALAZAR [Syllabus]
	METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD. [Syllabus]
	RENICO V. LETT [Syllabus]
	BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH [Syllabus]
	LOCKHART V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. SHATZER [Syllabus]
	LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. GANT [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. [Syllabus]
	COLLINS V. YOUNGBLOOD, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. RODRIGUEZ, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) [Syllabus]
	GARNER  V.  JONES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
	TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	CITY OF LITTLETON V. Z. J. GIFTS D—4, L. L. C. [Syllabus] Whether the requirement of prompt judicial review imposed by FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), entails a prompt judicial determination or a prompt commencement of judicial proceedings?
	RHINES V. WEBER [Syllabus]
	ROTELLA V. WOOD [Syllabus] In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
	[Syllabus]
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	STEWART V. DUTRA CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS [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."
	GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. POWELL [Syllabus]
	ZADVYDAS V. DAVIS [Syllabus] The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, implicitly limits an alien's detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention; the application of that limitation is subject to federal court review.
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SHALALA V. WHITECOTTON, 514 U.S. 268 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR, 515 U.S. 593 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MISSOURI V. SEIBERT [Syllabus] Is the rule that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985), abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Syllabus] 1. Does Revised Code of Washington 26.10.160(3) and the former RCW26.09.240 granting third parties, including grandparents, the right to petition for visitation rights with a minor child if the visitation is ""in the best interests of the child"" impermissibly interfere with a parent's fundamental interest in the ""care custody and companionship of a child"" as defined by the liberty and privacy provisions of the United States Constitution? 2. Did the Supreme Court of Washington err in Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), in holding that RCW 26. 10. 160(3) and the former RCW 26.09.240 are unconstitutional based upon the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment and the fundamental right to privacy inherent in the United States Constitution when it used the flawed premise that a parent's fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions is unassailable and that the state's parents patriae power to act in a child's welfare may not be invoked absent a finding of harm to the child or parental unfitness?
	PEARSON V. CALLAHAN [Syllabus]
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	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?
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MERCK & CO. V. REYNOLDS [Syllabus]
	WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. [Syllabus]
	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.
	SNYDER V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	BELL V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MV. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYOKABUSHIKI CO. [Syllabus] Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.
	MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR ARMEDFORCES OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V.ELAHI [Syllabus]
	SNYDER V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	HIBBS V. WINN [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?
	OHIO FORESTRY ASSN., INC. V. SIERRA CLUB, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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?
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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?
	[Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. WALTON [Syllabus] The Social Security Administration's interpretations of the Social Security Act provisions that authorize payment of Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income to individuals who have an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable . . . impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months," 42 U. S. C. §423(d)(1)(A); accord, §1382c(a)(3)(A), are lawful.
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	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?"
	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.
	GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. V. UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. [Syllabus] 1. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with five state courts of last resort, that an automobile manufacturer's compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard that permits, but does not require, installation of airbags in passenger vehicles preempts state common law claims that an automobile was defectively designed because it lacked an airbag? 2. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred by holding that, because this Court engaged in implied preemption analysis in Freightliner Corp. V. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995), the lower courts are free to disregard the limitations on implied preemption most recently emphasized in Cipollone V. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), to find that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1431, impliedly preempts common law claims, even thought the Act expressly provides that ""compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard … does not exempt any person from any liability under common law''?
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	FOSTER V. LOVE, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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?"
	SHALALA V. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSP., 514 U.S. 87 (1995). [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	NEVADA COMMN ON ETHICS V. CARRIGAN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE [Syllabus]
	BARAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a remittance of estimated taxes or of taxes withheld from wages is a payment of tax that is subject to the limitation on tax refunds set forth in Section 6511(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 6511(b).
	N.L.R.B. V. TOWN & COUNTRY ELEC, INC., ET, 516 U.S. 85 (1995) [Syllabus]
	SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA [Syllabus] Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
	PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LARA [Syllabus] Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	NKEN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. WRIGHT, 497 U.S. 805 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BOBBY V. BIES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CITY OFNEW YORK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SMITH V. MASSACHUSETTS [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus]
	THOMAS V. CHICAGO PARK DIST. [Syllabus] A content-neutral time, place, and manner permit scheme regulating speech in a public forum need not contain the procedural safeguards described in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51.
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. NIXON [Syllabus]
	NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	SMILEY V. CITIBANK (S.D.), N. A., 517 U.S. 735 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MUEHLER V. MENA [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOYLE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CONN V. GABBERT [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus] The District Court's conclusion that North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing its Twelfth Congressional District's boundaries is based on clearly erroneous findings.
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	MARKMAN ET AL. V. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., ET AL., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. TOHONO OODHAM NATION [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[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.
	PLIVA, INC. V. MENSING [Syllabus]
	HENDERSON V. SHINSEKI [Syllabus]
	KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SKILLING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	HARRINGTON V. RICHTER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. BRYANT [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. JOHNSON [Syllabus]
	DEVENPECK V. ALFORD [Syllabus]
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	PLEASANT GROVE CITY V. SUMMUM [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENTGROUP, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post- judgment motions under Rule 59 (e) and 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motion were pending.
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HYDE, 520 U.S. 670 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FOX V. VICE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND [Syllabus] Petitioner's claim that Rhode Island's application of its wetlands regulations took his property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause is ripe for review and is not barred by his acquisition of title after the regulations' effective date; however, he failed to establish a deprivation of all economic use, for the parcel retains significant development value.
	[Syllabus]
	WHORTON V. BOCKTING [Syllabus]
	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.
	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?
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	BRACY V. GRAMLEY, WARDEN, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NASA V. NELSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HOLLOWAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	J. D. B. V. NORTH CAROLINA [Syllabus]
	AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996) [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC [Syllabus] The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
	RILEY V. KENNEDY [Syllabus]
	SCHWAB V. REILLY [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	BARTLETT V. STRICKLAND [Syllabus]
	BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997) [Syllabus]
	HAMILTON V. LANNING [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	ROGERS V. TENNESSEE [Syllabus] The Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to petitioner of its decision abolishing the common law " year and a day rule" did not deny petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	DOLAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CORLEY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. LUNDY, 516 U.S. 235 (1996). [Syllabus]
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. [Syllabus] Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	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.
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998) [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."
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PEPPER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DASTAR CORP. V. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOXFILM CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works form uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion? 2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?
	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""?
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	CARR V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BEACH V. OCWEN FED. BANK, 523 U.S. 410 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BESTFOODS, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HOWSAM V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. [Syllabus] A National Association of Securities Dealers arbitrator, rather than a court, should apply the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's time limit rule to a client's dispute with a broker.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CAREY V. MUSLADIN [Syllabus]
	ROBINSON V. SHELL OIL CO., 519 U.S. 337 (1997). [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. VENTRIS [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS V. TRAVELERS, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) [Syllabus]
	TOME V. UNITED STATES, 513 U.S. 150 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PORTUONDO V. AGARD [Syllabus] Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 509 (1965)-- which prohibited a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's right to remain silent-- to a prosecutor's comment on a testifying defendant's presence in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses?
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. V. ALABAMA DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MASSARO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a federal criminal defendant, whose new appellate counsel fails to raise, on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is procedurally barred from asserting that constitutional claim in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
	ALABAMA V. SHELTON [Syllabus] Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	LONCHAR V. THOMAS, WARDEN, 517 U.S. 314 (1996). [Syllabus]
	KENNEDY V. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAV. AND INVESTMENT PLAN [Syllabus]
	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."
	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?
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. [Syllabus] Utility patents may be issued for newly developed plant breeds under 35 U. S. C. §101; neither the Plant Variety Protection Act nor the Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits the scope of §101's coverage.
	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.
	TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 117 S.CT. 1871, 138 L.ED.2D 135 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HORNE V.FLORES [Syllabus]
	AYERS V. BELMONTES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	HUNT-WESSON, INC. V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State may tax constitutionally exempt income under the guise of denying a deduction for expenses in an amount equal to such income when there is no evidence that the expenses relate to the production of the exempt income? 2. Whether a state tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause by disallowing an otherwise deductible expense, thereby increasing California taxable income, solely because the corporation is not domiciled in the State or does not have subsidiaries that engage in taxable in-state activity?
	RAYTHEON CO. V. HERNANDEZ [Syllabus] Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
	MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCINGSOUTHEAST, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding-contrary to decisions of this Court, other courts of appeals, and state courts, as well as the Restatements and leading treatises-that petitioner could not receive restitution of the $78 million paid to the United States for oil and gas leases following the enactment of a statute, which the trial court found ""clearly reduce(d) the value and materially alter(ed) the structure and framework"" of those leases, because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CUOMO V. CLEARING HOUSE ASSN., L. L. C. [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause.
	[Syllabus]
	DADA V. MUKASEY [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	SOLE V. WYNER [Syllabus]
	LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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).
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO [Syllabus]
	HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PFAFF V. WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus] The Sixth Circuit did not apply the proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because that court analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives.
	SHINSEKI V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RALEIGH V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE [Syllabus] Should tax claims in bankruptcy be given the advantage of placing the burden of proof on an objecting trustee, in contrast to the rule applicable to the claims of other creditors?"
	[Syllabus]
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM. [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JERMAN V. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, RINI,KRAMER & ULRICH LPA [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	NEGUSIE V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 513 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	POSTAL SERVICE V. GREGORY [Syllabus] The Merit Systems Protection Board may review independently prior disciplinary actions pending in grievance proceedings when reviewing termination and other serious disciplinary actions.
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether , in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988), Section 844(I) applies to the arson of a private residence: and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional."
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LILLY V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SEMTEK INT’L INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Is this Court's holding in Dupasseur-- that the resjudicata effect of the judgment of a federal court sitting in diversity ""is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances,"" and that ""no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed,"" 88 U. S. at 135-- still good law? 2. If Dupasseur is overruled or modified by this Court, what should be the res judicata effect of a statute of limitations dismissal in a federal court diversity suit?"
	UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	[Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S 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?
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. V. EMPAGRAN S.A. [Syllabus] (1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)?
	PEACOCK V. THOMAS, 516 U.S. 349 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	BOROUGH OF DURYEA V. GUARNIERI [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALLIED-BRUCE TERMINIX COS. V. DOBSON, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	MILWAUKEE BREWERY WORKERS' PENSION PLAN V. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO., 513 U.S. 414 (1995) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NOV.HOLDER [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. FERC [Syllabus] FERC did not exceed its jurisdiction when it required electric utilities that "unbundle"-i.e., separate-transmission costs from electricity costs when billing their retail consumers to transmit competitors' electricity over their lines on the same terms that the utilities apply to their own transmissions; and FERC's decision not to impose that requirement on utilities that offer only "bundled" retail sales was a permissible policy choice.
	GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DV. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND [Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION [Syllabus] Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
	BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL COMM. [Syllabus] Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V.ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SOUTH FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. V.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE [Syllabus] Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FITZGERALD V. RACING ASSN. OF CENTRAL IOWA [Syllabus] Can the State of Iowa tax the revenue from slot machines at parimutuel racetracks and the revenue from all casino games on riverboats, including slot machines, at different rates without violating the Equal Protection Clause?
	DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL., 517 U.S. 1 (1996). [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DOE V. CHAO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER [Syllabus]
	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.
	GONZALEZ V. CROSBY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) [Syllabus]
	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.
	ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC. V. HALLIBURTON CO. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLEVELAND INDIANSBASEBALL CO. [Syllabus] Back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA taxes by reference to the year the wages are in fact paid.
	EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS [Syllabus] 1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	RENT-A-CENTER, WEST, INC. V. JACKSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	INDIANA V. EDWARDS [Syllabus]
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student 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? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	BEARD V. KINDLER [Syllabus]
	POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. CITY OF VALDEZ [Syllabus]
	BRADSHAW V. STUMPF [Syllabus]
	ABBOTT V. ABBOTT [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. WARD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RIVERA V. ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RESENDIZ-PONCE [Syllabus]
	TEXAS V. COBB [Syllabus] Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
	[Syllabus]
	LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. V. COKE [Syllabus]
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	FOWLER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 117 S.CT. 1953, 138 L.ED.2D 327 (1997). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (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.
	MARRAMA V. CITIZENS BANK OF MASS. [Syllabus]
	PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HALL STREET ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. V. MATTEL, INC. [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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).
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	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.
	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?
	GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GILES V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JIMENEZ RECIO [Syllabus] A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object.
	DUNN V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 519 U.S. 465 (1997). [Syllabus]
	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.
	TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD. [Syllabus]
	BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
	WALTERS V. METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 U.S. 202 (1997). [Syllabus]
	O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL [Syllabus]
	JINKS V. RICHLAND COUNTY [Syllabus] The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute includes a provision, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), that tolls the period of limitations for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The question presented is whether the tolling provision invades state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
	GEISSAL V. MOORE MEDICAL CORP., 524 U.S. 74 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COTTON [Syllabus] A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN.,INC. V. GULF POWER CO. [Syllabus] The Pole Attachments Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the rates that utilities charge for attachments providing high-speed Internet access at the same time as cable television and for attachments providing wireless telecommunications.
	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?
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DANIELS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
	LAMIE V. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE [Syllabus] Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?
	[Syllabus]
	STRICKLER V. GREENE [Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [Syllabus]
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	CAPERTON V. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO. [Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	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?
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT [Syllabus] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
	CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. V. SCHOONEJONGEN, 514 U.S. 73 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	THORNTON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HOLLY FARMS CORP. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD. ET AL., 517 U.S. 392 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOEING CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Title 26 CFR §1.861-8(e)(3) (1979)-which governs allocation of research and development expenses in computing taxable income from export sales entitled to special tax treatment under Internal Revenue Code provisions pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" and "foreign sales corporations"-is a proper exercise of the Secretary of the Treasury's rulemaking authority.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus]
	TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. V. BAILEY [Syllabus]
	CARON V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 308 (1998) [Syllabus]
	J. MV. NICASTRO [Syllabus]
	KRUPSKI V. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. A. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SELING V. YOUNG [Syllabus] In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute: Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment."
	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.
	BEGAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	GISBRECHT V. BARNHART [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements between Social Security benefits claimants and their counsel within the ceiling set forth in §406(b)(1)(A); instead it instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.
	LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BERGHUIS V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES [Syllabus]
	SALAZAR V. BUONO [Syllabus]
	WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
	STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL [Syllabus] The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DEVLIN V. SCARDELLETTI [Syllabus] Nonnamed class members who have objected in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening in the lawsuit.
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MARCUS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[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?
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CV. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ONTARIO V. QUON [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) [Syllabus]
	FCC V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERV. V. YUEH SHAIO YANG, 519 U.S. 26 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GALLETTI [Syllabus] Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly?
	[Syllabus]
	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	TURNER V. ROGERS [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Bankruptcy Code's lookback period, which provides that a discharge does not extinguish certain tax liabilities for which a return was due within three years before the filing of the individual debtor's petition, 11 U. S. C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i), is tolled during the pendency of a prior bankruptcy petition.
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LOCKYER V. ANDRADE [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Andrade's sentence for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KSR INTL CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMSON V. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR [Syllabus] Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
	MONTANA V. WYOMING [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VONN [Syllabus] A defendant who does not object to a trial court's error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 must satisfy Rule 52(b)'s plain-error rule in order to withdraw a guilty plea; a reviewing court may look beyond the plea colloquy to the whole record in determining whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the Rule 11 error.
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS V.LOPEZ TORRES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) [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.
	[Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. [Syllabus]
	ANDERSON V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 143 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SYKES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION [Syllabus]
	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.
	FCC V. AT&T INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GROH V. RAMIREZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
	CAMRETA V. GREENE [Syllabus]
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUBS FREEDOMCLUB PAC V.BENNETT [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KELO V. NEW LONDON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAGGAR APPAREL CO. [Syllabus]
	LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS [Syllabus] Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [Syllabus]
	CITY OF MILWAUKEE V. CEMENT DIV., NAT'L GYPSUM CO., 515 U.S. 189 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	HAYWOOD V. DROWN [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INTL CO. V. MALAYSIA INTL SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SAN REMO HOTEL, L. P. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO [Syllabus]
	GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. V.METROPHONES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] The Child Online Protection Act's reliance on "community standards" to identify what World Wide Web material "is harmful to minors" does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes.
	GRAY V. MARYLAND, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROWE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	DODD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY [Syllabus]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	YEAGER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
	BUFORD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONCOMM. [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RANSOM V. FIA CARD SERVICES, N. A. [Syllabus]
	SCHAFFER V. WEAST [Syllabus]
	BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
	[Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. PRINGLE [Syllabus] Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?
	CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC. V.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY [Syllabus] Two moratoria on development that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin did not constitute per se takings of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995). [Syllabus]
	EXXON CO., U. S. A., ET AL. V. SOFEC, INC., ET AL., 516 U.S. 1156 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. PICCADILLYCAFETERIAS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FIOR D’ITALIA, INC. [Syllabus] In assessing a restaurant for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes based upon tips that its employees may have received but did not report, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use an aggregate estimate of all tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees.
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	STAUB V. PROCTOR HOSPITAL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC. [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS ED. TELEVISION COMM'N V. FORBES, 523 U.S. 666 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DILLON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BECK V. PRUPIS [Syllabus] Whether an employee who is terminated for both blowing the whistle on and refusing to participate in a pattern of predicated acts of racketeering forbidden by the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (""RICO""), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., may assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim, where he has been injured by an overt act in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy, which overt act is not, itself, a predicate act of racketeering (a question as to which the circuit courts of appeal are in direct conflict).
	RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. [Syllabus] Whether the district court erred in concluding that, because Bossier Parish School Board’s 1992 redistricting plan was not enacted with a retrogressive purpose, it was not enacted with ""the purpose *** of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,"" within the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S C. 1973c.
	[Syllabus]
	FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT [Syllabus] A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
	[Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995) [Syllabus]
	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.
	CLINGMAN V. BEAVER [Syllabus]
	ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO. V. TOWNSEND [Syllabus]
	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	NEVADA V. HICKS [Syllabus] A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
	OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. I—011V. FALVO [Syllabus] Peer grading-where students score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teacher explains the correct answers to the class-does not violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974's prohibition on the release of education records without parental consent.
	[Syllabus]
	LINDH V. MURPHY, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 2059, 138 L.ED.2D 481 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP [Syllabus]
	HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. V. LYONS [Syllabus] 1. Whether section 144 of the 1996 Farm Bill creates an unmistakably clear blanket exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause For California's interstate regulation of the dairy industry, which would be otherwise limited by this Court's holding in baldwin v. G.A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935), and its progeny? 2. Whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an unmistakably clear Congressional exemption to the negative Commerce Clause?
	[Syllabus]
	REGALADO CUELLAR V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CARTER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
	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?"
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VARITY CORP. V. HOWE ET AL., 516 U.S. 489 (1996). [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SANTOS [Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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?
	SEC V. EDWARDS [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term investment contract in the definitions of ''securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	MELENDEZ V. UNITED STATES, 117 S. CT. 383, 136 L. ED. 2D 301 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNICODE VALUE='8195'>KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LTD. V. REGAL-BELOIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	REED ELSEVIER, INC. V. MUCHNICK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 117 S.CT. 1888, 138 L.ED.2D 231 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
	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?"
	[Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART [Syllabus]
	HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
	PREMO V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DECK V. MISSOURI [Syllabus]
	HUI V. CASTANEDA [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TENET V. DOE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION [Syllabus]
	PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CASTRO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
	[Syllabus]
	WEYERHAEUSER CO. V. ROSS-SIMMONS HARDWOODLUMBER CO. [Syllabus]
	YSURSA V. POCATELLO ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS [Syllabus] A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
	[Syllabus]
	JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. [Syllabus] Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
	NORTH STAR STEEL CO. V. THOMAS, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
	WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY [Syllabus]
	ABUELHAWA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
	[Syllabus]
	BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. V. ESPINOSA [Syllabus]
	INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	ASGROW SEED CO. V. WINTERBOER, 513 U.S. 179 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. V.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. CARLISLE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. IQBAL [Syllabus]
	TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. V. MARKETINGDISPLAYS, INC. [Syllabus] Because MDI's dual-spring design mechanism for keeping road signs upright is a functional feature for which there is no trade dress protection, MDI's claim for such protection is barred.
	[Syllabus]
	WHITFIELD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JAMA V. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [Syllabus]
	MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	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.
	GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WINTER V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL, INC. [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR OF REVENUE OF MO. V. COBANK ACB [Syllabus] Does 12 U.S.C. Section 2134 authorize states to tax the income of the National Bank for Cooperatives, a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States?""."
	[Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY V. KING [Syllabus]
	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."
	MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS [Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER [Syllabus] Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
	GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. V. BAZZLE [Syllabus] Whether the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.1et seq., prohibits class-action procedures from being superimposed onto an arbitration agreement that does not provide for class action arbitration.
	[Syllabus]
	LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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?
	ORTIZ V. JORDAN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) [Syllabus]
	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.
	BENNIS V. MICHIGAN, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WYOMING V. HOUGHTON [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON [Syllabus]
	SEC V. ZANDFORD [Syllabus] Assuming that the allegations in the SEC's complaint are true, respondent's alleged fraudulent conduct-selling his customer's securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer's knowledge or consent-was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's Rule 10b-5.
	CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC. V. FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS [Syllabus]
	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?"
	BOND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. BLACK [Syllabus] Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even though the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
	[Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FREIGHTLINER CORP. V. MYRICK, 514 U.S. 280 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BRIDGE V. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO. [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORP.V. GARRIS [Syllabus] The general maritime cause of action recognized in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 374, 409__for dealth caused by violation of maritime duties__is available for the negligent breach of a maritime dutry of care.
	[Syllabus]
	AMERICAN ELEC. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT [Syllabus]
	KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HARDT V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. SWITZER [Syllabus]
	MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUS. CO., LTD., ET AL. V. EPSTEIN ET AL., 516 U.S. 367 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. HADIX [Syllabus]
	MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	HOLLAND V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FULTON CORP. V. FAULKNER, SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF N. C., 516 U.S. 325 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	TAYLOR V. STURGELL [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. JEFFERSON LINES, 514 U.S. 175 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RICE V. COLLINS [Syllabus]
	BECK V. PACE INTL UNION [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS [Syllabus] Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
	[Syllabus]
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 296 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ATLANTIC MUT. INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 523 U.S. 382 (1998) [Syllabus]
	QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BROWN V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LOGAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	561 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WOOD V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. V. SEB S. A. [Syllabus]
	CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. V. RASH ET UX., 117 S.CT. 1879, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. HAMILTON COUNTY [Syllabus]
	CONE V. BELL [Syllabus]
	BRENTWOOD ACADEMY V. TENNESSEE SECONDARYSCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. [Syllabus] Whether the regulatory conduct of a nominally private secondary school athletic association, which ""establishes and enforces all of the rules by which high school teams and players, at both public and private schools, compete throughout the state of Tennessee,"" Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School athletic Ass'n, 190 F.3rd 705 (6th Cir. 1999) (Merritt, J., dissenting from the denial of petition for rehearing en banc), and whose ""membership consist(s) entirely of institutions located within the same State, many of them public institutions created by the same sovereign, "" NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 193 n. 13 (1988), constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. 1983."
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995). [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?
	VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
	TENNARD V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND V. STRUMPF, 516 U.S. 16 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SIMS V. APFEL [Syllabus] May a federal court, without any statutory or regulatory authority in support thereof, and contrary to the informal non-adversarial nature of the Social Security administrative appeal process, impose an ''issue exhaistion"" requirement upon Social Security claimants in federal court to bar issues that were not specifically raised by the claimant during the administrative appeal process."
	[Syllabus]
	POWEREX CORP. V. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BROGAN V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ALVAREZ V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. [Syllabus]
	CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES,P. C. V. WELLS [Syllabus] Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. is a medical clinic formed as a professional corporation but which operates and has legal attributes of a partnership. The question presented is whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if the Clinic's physician-shareholders are counted as employees for the purpose of determining if the Clinic is a covered entity subject to the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination states. In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the physician-shareholders are employees. The court below rejected the holdings of the Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits which used an economic realities test. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit which rejected that test.
	GALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. V. HIF BIO, INC. [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON [Syllabus]
	BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND [Syllabus] Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
	[Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NLRB V. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC. [Syllabus] The burden of proving supervisory status in a representation hearing and unfair-labor-practice proceeding falls on the employer, the party asserting supervisory status; the NLRB's categorical exclusion of professional judgments from the term "independent judgment" is inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
	LOCKE V. KARASS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WYETH V. LEVINE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PORTLAND GOLF CLUB V. COMMISSIONER, 497 U.S. 154 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NOLAND, 517 U.S. 535 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	[Syllabus]
	HERTZ CORP. V. FRIEND [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCMILLIAN V. MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, 520 U.S. 781 (1997). [Syllabus]
	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?
	CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSN. V. FTC [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. ICE [Syllabus]
	KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. V. LASTINGIMPRESSION I, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. STEVENS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN. [Syllabus] Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
	QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. LANZA RESEARCH INT., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SAUCIER V. KATZ [Syllabus] A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making an arrest; petitioner, a military police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in arresting respondent.
	LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 516 U.S. 22 (1995) [Syllabus]
	MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC. V. PUBLICUTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH CTY. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. JONES, 515 U.S. 304 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [Syllabus]
	BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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?
	MISSOURI V. JENKINS, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TREST V. CAIN, 522 U.S. 87 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CONNICK V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	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?
	[Syllabus]
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	TALK AMERICA, INC. V. MICHIGAN BELLTELEPHONE CO. [Syllabus]
	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	HERRING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999) [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO [Syllabus] Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
	[Syllabus]
	SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
	REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES V. PIMENTEL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) [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."
	BLACK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GITLITZ  V.  COMMISSIONER [Syllabus] Whether, in conflict with the holdings of the Third Circuit in United States v. Farley, No 99-3209, F. 3d (3d Cir. 2000) (App. 92) and the Fifth Circuit in CSI Hydrostatic Testers, Inc. and Subs. v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 136 (5th Cir. 1995), aff'g and adopting the opinion of the Tax Court, 103 T.C. 398 (1994), the Tenth Circuit incorrectly held that tax attributes subject to reduction under 26 U.S.C. 108(b), including the suspended losses of an S corporation shareholder, must be reduced in the year that discharge of indebtedness income, excluded under 26 U.S.C. 108(a), is realized, despite the statutory requirement that all tax attributes, including suspended losses, be adjusted in the succeeding taxable year, and only after the determination of tax for the taxable year, of the discharge."
	[Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S. A.V.BROWN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PAYTON [Syllabus]
	BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHICKASAW NATION V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act provision codified at 25 U. S. C. §2719(d)(i) does not exempt tribes from paying the gambling-related taxes imposed by chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code.
	559 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC. V.UNITED STATESSYLLABUS [Syllabus] The "product liability loss" (PLL) of an affiliated group of corporations electing to file a consolidated federal income tax return must be figured on a consolidated, single-entity basis, not by aggregating PLLs separately determined company by company.
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	UNITED STATES V. HAYES [Syllabus]
	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.
	LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 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.
	[Syllabus]
	CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. V. BILL HARBERTCONSTR. CO. [Syllabus] Whether a suit to vacate an arbitration award may be brought in the district in which the events in the underlying dispute occurred.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-SALAZAR [Syllabus] Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EURODIF S. A. [Syllabus]
	DOE V. REED [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	ICC V. TRANSCON LINES, 513 U.S. 138 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JOINER, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. COLORADO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. CRANE [Syllabus] Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, set forth no requirement that a dangerous sexual offender have a total or complete lack of control to civilly commit him, but the Constitution does not permit such commitment without any lack-of-control determination.
	FISCHER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether Medicare payments to a hospital for services provided to Medicare patients qualify as ""benefits"" to meet the jurisdictional requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. 666 so as to federalize crimes of theft, embezzlement, and bribery involving the hospital?"
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 515 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	COEUR ALASKA, INC. V. SOUTHEAST ALASKACONSERVATION COUNCIL [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. SPISAK [Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NRG POWER MARKETING, LLC V. MAINE PUB.UTIL. COMMN [Syllabus]
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MEYER V. HOLLEY [Syllabus] The Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault upon a corporate employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.
	[Syllabus]
	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®.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	QUANTA COMPUTER, INC. V. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. [Syllabus]
	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?
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ [Syllabus]
	GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
	GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. NORTH CAROLINA [Syllabus]
	KNOWLES V. IOWA [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Because the judgment below was not "[f]inal" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
	VADEN V. DISCOVER BANK [Syllabus]
	O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. [Syllabus]
	SABRI V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
	OHLER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a ruling granting the government's in limine motion to introduce evidence of her prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if she attempts to "" remove the sting"" of the conviction by introducing the conviction while testifying on direct examination?"
	BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ENGINE MFRS. ASSN. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DIST. [Syllabus] Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
	BUSH V. VERA, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RICCI V. DESTEFANO [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [Syllabus]
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T CORP. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WEISGRAM  V.  MARLEY CO. [Syllabus] 1. If the District Court erred in admitting the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts and the relief to be awarded is a new trial, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in conflict with its own precedent and decisions of other United States Courts of Appeal if it granted judgment as a matter of law to Marley Company after excising portions of Plaintiffs' experts' testimony?
	BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK V. ANDERSON [Syllabus] This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
	[Syllabus]
	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).
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMIN. V. FAVISH [Syllabus] The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
	BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. V. ANIMALFEEDS INTL CORP. [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. V. HENSON [Syllabus] The All Writs Act does not furnish removal jurisdiction; that Act, alone or in combination with the existence of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, is not a substitute for 28 U. S. C. §1441's requirement that a federal court have original jurisdiction over an action in order for it to be removed from a state court.
	RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES., 517 U.S. 292 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SLACK V. MCDANIEL [Syllabus] If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	BURDICK V. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MEDELLIN V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 514 U.S. 527 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER [Syllabus] Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
	MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FORNEY V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 266 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. [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.
	PEGRAM V. HERDRICH [Syllabus] Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
	UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., 517 U.S. 843 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. BAYER CORP. [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSN. V.DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR [Syllabus] Whether the Contract Disputed Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private parties for the development, operation, and maintenance of concessions, such as restaurants, lodges, and gift shops, in the national parks.
	FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. V. FINK, 522 U.S. 221 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAMANTAR V. YOUSUF [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK V. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [Syllabus] A corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a "citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state" for purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(2).
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) [Syllabus]
	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	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?
	CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. V. KING [Syllabus] The RICO provision forbidding "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," 18 U. S. C. §1962(c), applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner-whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate authority.
	HARBISON V. BELL [Syllabus]
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC. V. SIRACUSANO [Syllabus]
	DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
	FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS [Syllabus] Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consistent with the Clean Waters Act and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters solely because those waters solely because those waters do or potentially could serve as habitat of migratory birds."
	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HEMI GROUP, LLC V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FRY V. PLILER [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE [Syllabus] Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LOS ANGELES COUNTY V. HUMPHRIES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. HICKS [Syllabus] 1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	SMALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ENTERGY CORP. V. RIVERKEEPER, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAYS, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF ARMY V. BLUE FOX, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	CONNECTICUT DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY V. DOE [Syllabus] The Second Circuit's judgment enjoining the public disclosure provisions of Connecticut's "Megan's Law" must be reversed because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact, here, current dangerousness, that is not material to the State's statutory scheme.
	WATSON V. PHILIP MORRIS COS. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS [Syllabus]
	LEXECON INC. V. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH 523 U.S. 26 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S 322 (1996). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JOHANNS V. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSN. [Syllabus]
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	GUTIERREZ V. ADA [Syllabus] 1. By rewriting the statutory words "" in any election"" to state"" in any general election in which the gubernational election is a part,"" 2. By rewriting the statutory words a "" majority of votes cast in any election"" to mean a ""majority of votes cast in any election"" to mean a ""majority of ballots cast in any general election,"" and 3. By counting as ""votes"" ballots that are invalid under Guam election statutes, thereby placing the Ninth Circuit in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's interpretation of the identical language of the Virgin Islands Organic Act (48 U.S.C. 1591) in Todman v. Boschulte, 684 F.2D (3d Cir. 1982)?
	[Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	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.
	IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MONSANTO CO. V. GEERTSON SEED FARMS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BREWER V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GOMEZ-PEREZ V. POTTER [Syllabus]
	LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LAWRENCE V. TEXAS [Syllabus] 1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
	SUITUM V. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SHANKLIN [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals properly applied this Court's decision in CSX Transportation, Inc. V. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), when it held, in acknowledged conflict with decisions of three other circuits, that claims of negligence based on inadeguate warning devices at a railway grade crossing are not preempted even through the warning devices at the crossing were installed with federal funds under a project approved by the federal government."
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P. A.V. ALLSTATE INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	KUCANA V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. ROBINETTE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) [Syllabus]
	FELLERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
	PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN [Syllabus] Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
	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.
	MORRISON V. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RUIZ [Syllabus] The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
	[Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	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."
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FLORES-FIGUEROA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	[Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."
	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?
	[Syllabus]
	WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND &CATTLE CO. [Syllabus]
	QUALITEX CO. V. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., 514 U.S. 159 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DOOLEY V. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., 524 U.S. 116 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW [Syllabus] Whether a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable police officer, who is patrolling a high crime area, is sufficiently suspicious to justify a temporary investigator stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio.
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS [Syllabus]
	RING V. ARIZONA [Syllabus] Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, is irreconcilable with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and is, accordingly, overruled to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, see 497 U. S., at 647-649. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494, n. 19, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
	ENTERGY LA., INC. V. LOUISIANA PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus] Whether Mississippi Power & light v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (1988), and Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986), require a state public utility commission to allow an electric utility member of a multi-state power system to recover, in retail rates, the costs allocated to it by a rate schedule of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), or whether the state commission has jurisdiction to decide that it was imprudent for such a utility to incur the costs allocated to it under a FERC rate schedule, thereby trapping such wholesale costs?
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) [Syllabus]
	ENGQUIST V. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRYAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA V. BROWN, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC. V. KAPLAN, 514 U.S. 938 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TORY V. COCHRAN [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS [Syllabus]
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CRAFT [Syllabus] Michigan law gives a tenant by the entirety individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach under 26 U. S. C. §6321.
	YOUR HOME VISITING NURSE SERVICES, INC. V. SHALALA [Syllabus]
	JONES V. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L. P. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. [Syllabus] Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
	US AIRWAYS, INC. V. BARNETT [Syllabus] An employer's showing that an "accommodation" requested under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 conflicts with seniority rules is ordinarily sufficient to show that the accommodation is not "reasonable"; but the employee remains free to show special circumstances that make a seniority rule exception reasonable in the particular case.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PERDUE V. KENNY A. [Syllabus]
	HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO. V. UNIONPLANTERS BANK, N. A. [Syllabus] Does a postpetition administrative creditor in a bankruptcy case have standing under 11 U.S.C. 506© to seek payment of its administrative claim from property of the bankruptcy estate that is encumbered by a secured creditor's lien?"
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES [Syllabus]
	CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATESV. BROWN [Syllabus]
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	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).
	UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND V. HEINZ [Syllabus] Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALLISON ENGINE CO. V. UNITED STATES EX REL.SANDERS [Syllabus]
	MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). [Syllabus]
	TAPIA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. V. BOOK [Syllabus] Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff's RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.
	DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OFNASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON CTY. [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	THINGS REMEMBERED, INC. V. PETRARCA, 516 U.S. 124 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Does the district court abuse its discretion by dissolving the injuction against state court proceeding in a single claimant limitation of liability case (46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.) when the claimant guarantees the vessel owner's right to limitation by stipulating that the claim does not exceed the limitation fund; and 2. If so, must the injunction nonetheless be dissolved pursuant to the Saving To Suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. 1333(2)?"
	ALABAMA V. NORTH CAROLINA [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	550 U. S. ____ (2007) [Syllabus]
	BOND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
	562 U. S. ____ (2011) [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEP'T OF LABOR V. NEWPORT [Syllabus]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus] Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BEHRENS V. PELLETIER, 516 U.S. 299 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONDIST. V.UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [Syllabus]
	ORFF V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VAN V. GOLDSTEIN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. I4I LTD. PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V. BABBITT [Syllabus] 1. Destroy the protection and priority statutorily accorded to adjudicated rights to graze livestock on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, by replacing established ""grazing preferences"" with variable ""permitted uses"", 2. Provide that the United States in the future will have title to structural range improvements made and paid for by grazing permittees: and 3. Allow grazing permits to be issued to persons not ""engaged the livestock business."""
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
	SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [Syllabus]
	COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER [Syllabus] Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	MARYLAND V. WILSON, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ASTRA USA, INC. V.SANTA CLARA COUNTY [Syllabus]
	SOSSAMON V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	BREUER V. JIM’S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC. [Syllabus] Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
	[Syllabus]
	BILSKI V. KAPPOS [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) [Syllabus]
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995). [Syllabus]
	STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
	UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS [Syllabus] The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	ROCKWELL INTL CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HAWAII V. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS [Syllabus]
	HOLMES GROUP, INC. V. VORNADO AIRCIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal patent law, but the answer contains a patent-law counterclaim.
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	NEW PROCESS STEEL, L. P. V. NLRB [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN [Syllabus] 1) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?
	STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC. V. FLOR-IDA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	ROGERS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 252 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OLYMPIC AIRWAYS V. HUSAIN [Syllabus] Whether the accident condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence were a link in the chain, of causation? The Ninth Circuit's answer to this question in the affirmative directly conflicts with the Third and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Abramson v. Japan Airlines, Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 470 U.S. 1059 (1985) and Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), and is contrary to the Court's decision in Air France. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PATANE [Syllabus] Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
	RICHARDSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA V.PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	YELLOW TRANSP., INC. V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus] The Michigan Supreme Court erred in holding that, under 49 U. S. C. §14504(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III), only a State's "generic" interstate motor carrier registration fee is relevant to determining the fee that was "collected or charged as of November 15, 1991." States may not renounce or modify a reciprocity agreement with another State so as to alter any fee charged or collected as of that date.
	[Syllabus]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE [Syllabus] The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment.
	RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. V. CHERTOFF [Syllabus]
	WEST COVINA V. PERKINS [Syllabus]
	CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
	ARCHER V. WARNER [Syllabus] A debt for money promised in a settlement agreement accompanied by the release of underlying tort claims can amount to a debt for money obtained by fraud, within the terms of 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(2)(A), the Bankruptcy Code's nondischargeability provision.
	ASTRUE V. RATLIFF [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OFAMERICA V. WHITING [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. KEOHANE, WARDEN, ET AL., 516 U.S. 99 (1996).. [Syllabus]
	ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY [Syllabus] The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	NASA V. FLRA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	LIMTIACO V. CAMACHO [Syllabus]
	MID-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB.SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CAL. [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. DOTSON [Syllabus]
	AT&T MOBILITY LLC V. CONCEPCION [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	PADILLA V. KENTUCKY [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE [Syllabus]
	RENO V. CONDON [Syllabus] Whether the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, contravenes constitutional principles of federalism.
	[Syllabus]
	O'CONNOR V. CONSOLIDATED COIN CATERERS CORP., 517 U.S. 308 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP. [Syllabus]
	MUNAF V.GEREN [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC. [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF WIS. SYSTEMV. SOUTHWORTH [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment is offended by a policy or program under which public university students must pay mandatory fees that are used in part to support organizations that engage in political speech.
	DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. V. CASAROTTO ET UX., 517 U.S. 681 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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."
	[Syllabus]
	NELSON V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
	ORNELAS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 690 (1996). [Syllabus]
	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."
	BABBITT V. SWEET HOME CHAPT. COMMS. FOR ORE., 515 U.S. 687 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RESSAM [Syllabus]
	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?
	NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MACS SHELL SERVICE, INC. V.SHELL OILPRODUCTS CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 519 U.S. 9 (1996) [Syllabus]
	KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF IRAQ V. BEATY [Syllabus]
	SUMMERS V. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus] Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
	EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP [Syllabus] 1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.
	[Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. MCBRIDE [Syllabus]
	FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DIST. V. T. A. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CELOTEX CORP. V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 300 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL [Syllabus] 1. Whether economic sanctions against Burma enacted by Congress in 1996-- three months after enactment of the Massachusetts Burma Law-- implicitly permit, or preempt, state and local selective purchasing laws regarding Burma. 2. Whether selective purchasing law such as the Massachusetts Burma Law represent ""market participation,"" not regulation, and are therefore exempt from claims based on the Foreign Commerce Clause and the foreign affairs power of the federal government. 3. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. 4. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law discriminate against foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause."
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. GLENN [Syllabus]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Syllabus] Whether a state law requiring a Boy Scout Troop to appoint an avowed homosexual and gray rights activist as an Assistant Scoutmaster responsible for communicating Boy Scouting's moral values to youth members abridges First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association."
	GLICKMAN V. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., 117 S.CT. 2130, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N 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.
	RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 520 U.S. 471 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DE BUONO . V. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICE FUND, 520 U.S. 806 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN. [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	SHAW V. HUNT, 116 S.CT. 1894, 135 L.ED.2D 207 (1996) [Syllabus]
	KNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	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.
	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).
	NEW HAMPSHIRE V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. FORDICE, 520 U.S. 273 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SORRELL V. IMS HEALTH INC. [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP. [Syllabus]
	RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DENEDO [Syllabus]
	HEINTZ V. JENKINS, 514 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996) [Syllabus]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. DOE, 519 U.S. 425 (1997). [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALTRIA GROUP, INC. V. GOOD [Syllabus]
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL [Syllabus] There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KYLLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Where the Government uses a device, such as a thermal imager, that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU [Syllabus] Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. J. L. [Syllabus] Whether an anonymous tip which states that a person is carrying a concealed firearm at a specific location, with a detailed description of the person and his attire, is sufficiently reliable to justify an investigatory detention and frisk where the police immediately verify the accuracy of the tip?"
	WALL V. KHOLI [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	AT&T CORP. V. IOWA UTILITIES BD., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. V. ROCHE [Syllabus]
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995). [Syllabus]
	COLUMBUS V. OURS GARAGE & WRECKERSERVICE, INC. [Syllabus] 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(2)(A)-which excepts "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles" from §14501(c)(1)'s general rule preempting prescriptions by "a State [or] political subdivision of a State . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property"-does not bar a State from delegating to municipalities and other local units the State's authority to establish safety regulations governing motor carriers of property, including tow trucks.
	AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MAISLIN INDUSTRIES, U.S. V. PRIMARY STEEL, 497 U.S. 116 (1990) [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. LEATHERMANTOOL GROUP, INC. [Syllabus] Courts of Appeals should apply a de novo, not an abuse-of-discretion, standard when reviewing district court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN AIRLINES V. WOLENS, 513 U.S. 219 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD. [Syllabus]
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PGA TOUR, INC. V. MARTIN [Syllabus] Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits petitioner from denying golfer Casey Martin equal access to its golf tours on the basis of a disability that prevents him from walking a golf course; allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite petitioner's walking requirement, is not a modification that would "fundamentally alter the nature" of petitioner's tours.
	NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V. HILES, 516 U.S. 400 (1996). [Syllabus]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]