Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query title returned 197 results.

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

	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	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?
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[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?
	FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [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.
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V.ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	RICCI V. DESTEFANO [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP [Syllabus]
	GOMEZ-PEREZ V. POTTER [Syllabus]
	ROBINSON V. SHELL OIL CO., 519 U.S. 337 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [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.
	[Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [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.
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [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.
	AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN [Syllabus]
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	STERN V. MARSHALL [Syllabus]
	CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES [Syllabus]
	GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	REED ELSEVIER, INC. V. MUCHNICK [Syllabus]
	FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [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?
	[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]
	[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."""
	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?
	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.
	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.
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [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).
	WALTERS V. METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 U.S. 202 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [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]
	[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."
	NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 117 S.CT. 1888, 138 L.ED.2D 231 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. [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)."
	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.
	CRAWFORD V. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OFNASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON CTY. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. LANZA RESEARCH INT., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) [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?
	MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES [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.
	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).
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [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
	[Syllabus]
	CARCIERI V. SALAZAR [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	SOSSAMON V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [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.
	PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (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).
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC. [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."
	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?
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC. V. FLOR-IDA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[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."
	MORRISON V. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD. [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [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.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[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]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	SCHWAB V. REILLY [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO UNITED NATIONS V.CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. V. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., 516 U.S. 264 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 514 U.S. 527 (1995). [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.
	MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS [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."
	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]
	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.
	NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER [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.
	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.
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) [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.
	PERDUE V. KENNY A. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BEACH V. OCWEN FED. BANK, 523 U.S. 410 (1998) [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.
	BILSKI V. KAPPOS [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	HAWAII V. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS [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]
	[Syllabus]
	O'CONNOR V. CONSOLIDATED COIN CATERERS CORP., 517 U.S. 308 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC. [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. FINKELSTEIN, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES [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."
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. V. ROCHE [Syllabus]
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION [Syllabus]
	[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.
	MARRAMA V. CITIZENS BANK OF MASS. [Syllabus]
	IBP, INC. V. ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	C.I.R. V. ESTATE OF HUBERT, 520 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LINDH V. MURPHY, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 2059, 138 L.ED.2D 481 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [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?
	MELENDEZ V. UNITED STATES, 117 S. CT. 383, 136 L. ED. 2D 301 (1996). [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART [Syllabus]
	AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	JAMA V. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [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.
	[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.
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [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."
	[Syllabus]