skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

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

Your query constitutional or unconstitutional returned 553 results.

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

1000 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
962 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Opinion]
900 INS V. CHADHA
[Opinion]
862 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Concurrence]
841 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Dissent]
841 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Opinion]
841 BUTZ V. ECONOMOU
[Opinion]
819 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Dissent]
797 ********
[Opinion]
797 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Opinion]
772 BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
[Syllabus]
772 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
772 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
772 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT
[Opinion]
772 REYNOLDS V. SIMS
[Dissent]
772 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
772 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
772 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Dissent]
772 UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN
[Opinion]
772 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
744 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING)
[Dissent]
744 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Opinion]
744 ********
[Dissent]
744 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
716 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
[Syllabus]
716 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Opinion]
716 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
716 REYNOLDS V. SIMS
[Opinion]
716 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Opinion]
716 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Dissent]
716 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Opinion]
682 AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG.
[Syllabus]
682 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concurrence]
682 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
682 INS V. CHADHA
[Syllabus]
682 YOUNGER V. HARRIS
[Dissent]
682 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
682 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concurrence]
682 ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
[Concurrence]
682 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Dissent]
682 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
682 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
682 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Opinion]
682 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Concurrence]
682 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING)
[Opinion]
682 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
682 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Dissent]
682 PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
682 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
644 RENO V. ACLU
[Opinion]
644 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Opinion]
644 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Opinion]
644 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
644 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
644 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY
[Opinion]
644 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
644 UNITED STATES V. LOVETT
[Opinion]
644 LUGAR V. EDMONDSON OIL CO., INC.
[Opinion]
644 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
644 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Opinion]
644 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
644 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
644 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
644 WELSH V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
644 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
644 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
644 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Opinion]
644 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Opinion]
644 STANFORD V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
644 BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA
[Dissent]
644 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Opinion]
644 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
644 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY
[Concurrence]
644 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Opinion]
644 LUGAR V. EDMONDSON OIL CO., INC.
[Dissent]
644 ORR V. ORR
[Opinion]
604 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY
[Syllabus]
604 NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998)
[Syllabus]
604 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC.
[Syllabus]
604 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
604 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Dissent]
604 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Dissent]
604 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Syllabus]
604 MAPP V. OHIO
[Dissent]
604 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
604 TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST.
[Dissent]
604 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
604 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
604 GRAYNED V. CITY OF ROCKFORD
[Opinion]
604 BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC.
[Opinion]
604 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Opinion]
604 ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
604 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
604 STREET V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
604 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
604 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Opinion]
604 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
604 COX V. LOUISIANA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
604 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
604 COX V. LOUISIANA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
604 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
604 MARSH V. CHAMBERS
[Dissent]
604 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Opinion]
604 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Concurrence]
604 APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE
[Opinion]
604 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
557 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
[Syllabus]
557 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.
557 POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. CITY OF VALDEZ
[Syllabus]
557 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Opinion]
557 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
557 ********
[Concurrence]
557 SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE
[Dissent]
557 YOUNGER V. HARRIS
[Opinion]
557 WARTH V. SELDIN
[Dissent]
557 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Dissent]
557 ENMUND V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
557 CITY OF RENTON V. PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC.
[Dissent]
557 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY
[Dissent]
557 BAKER V. CARR
[Dissent]
557 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING)
[Dissent]
557 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Dissent]
557 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
557 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
557 SCALES V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
557 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
557 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
557 TRUAX V. RAICH
[Syllabus]
557 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Dissent]
557 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Concurrence]
557 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Opinion]
557 BOWSHER V. SYNAR
[Dissent]
557 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
557 SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
557 LYNCH V. DONNELLY
[Dissent]
557 CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB
[Opinion]
557 MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
[Opinion]
557 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
557 CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH
[Opinion]
557 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY
[Opinion]
557 ROE V. WADE
[Opinion]
557 MAPP V. OHIO
[Opinion]
557 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
557 MAHER V. ROE
[Dissent]
557 ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
[Opinion]
557 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING)
[Syllabus]
498 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."
498
[Syllabus]
498 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
498 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.
498 DOE V. REED
[Syllabus]
498 GONZALES V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
498 LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997).
[Syllabus]
498 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.
498 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?
498
[Syllabus]
498 ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997).
[Syllabus]
498 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
498 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.
498 ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
498 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Opinion]
498 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concurrence]
498 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Dissent]
498 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
498 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Dissent]
498 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
498 BUTZ V. ECONOMOU
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON
[Opinion]
498 UNITED STATES V. SALERNO
[Opinion]
498 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 BAKER V. CARR
[Opinion]
498 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
498 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Syllabus]
498 ********
[Syllabus]
498 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Opinion]
498 REID V. COVERT
[Opinion]
498 HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER
[Dissent]
498 BUTZ V. ECONOMOU
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP
[Opinion]
498 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Dissent]
498 DOE V. BOLTON
[Opinion]
498 UNITED STATES V. QUARLES
[Dissent]
498 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Opinion]
498 HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS
[Dissent]
498 MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Concurrence]
498 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
498 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Dissent]
498 MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO
[Opinion]
498 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 MARBURY V. MADISON
[Opinion]
498 SAENZ V. ROE
[Opinion]
498 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Opinion]
498 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Syllabus]
498 INS V. CHADHA
[Dissent]
498 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
498 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
498 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Opinion]
498 ROMER V. EVANS
[Dissent]
498 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL
[Dissent]
498 UNITED STATES V. BUTLER
[Dissent]
498 SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ
[Opinion]
498 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
498 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[]
498 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Opinion]
498 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Concurrence]
498 JOHNSON V. ROBISON
[Opinion]
498 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG
[Opinion]
498 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Dissent]
498 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Dissent]
498 MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF
[Opinion]
498 ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
[Opinion]
498 WELSH V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
498 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Dissent]
498 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Dissent]
498 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Dissent]
498 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
498 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Opinion]
498 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Opinion]
498 HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS
[Opinion]
498 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Concurrence]
498 VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO.
[Opinion]
498 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Opinion]
498 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
498 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Dissent]
498 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Opinion]
498 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Opinion]
498 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Concurrence]
498 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Concurrence]
498 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Dissent]
498 COX V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
498 MISSISSIPPI V. JOHNSON
[Opinion]
498 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
498 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Dissent]
498 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Opinion]
498 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
498 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Concurrence]
498 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Concurrence]
498 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
498 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Syllabus]
498 IN RE GAULT
[Opinion]
429 UNITED STATES V. STEVENS
[Syllabus]
429 ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD
[Syllabus]
429
[Syllabus]
429 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
429 DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
429 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Syllabus]
429 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
429 STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC. V. FLOR-IDA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
[Syllabus]
429 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
429 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.
429 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?
429 JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER
[Syllabus]
429 KANSAS V. MARSH
[Syllabus]
429 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
429 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD.
[Syllabus]
429
[Syllabus]
429
[Syllabus]
429 FREEMAN V. PITTS
[Opinion]
429 STREET V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
429 SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC.
[Opinion]
429 UNITED STATES V. LOVETT
[Concurrence]
429 PLESSY V. FERGUSON
[Opinion]
429 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY
[Dissent]
429 MULFORD V. SMITH
[Opinion]
429 HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF
[Syllabus]
429 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 INS V. CHADHA
[Dissent]
429 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Opinion]
429 WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH
[Dissent]
429 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
429 HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
[Opinion]
429 SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 GOLDBERG V. KELLY
[Dissent]
429 BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC.
[Syllabus]
429 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Dissent]
429 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
429 MISSOURI V. JENKINS
[Concurrence]
429 UNITED STATES V. JACKSON
[Opinion]
429 KATZENBACH V. MORGAN
[Dissent]
429 EVANS V. ABNEY
[Dissent]
429 ORR V. ORR
[Dissent]
429 GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
429 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Opinion]
429 COHENS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
429 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Concurrence]
429 EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS
[Concurrence]
429 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT
[Syllabus]
429 QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 BOWSHER V. SYNAR
[Opinion]
429 VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METROPOLITAN
[Opinion]
429 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
429 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Opinion]
429 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Concurrence]
429 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Concurrence]
429 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 WHALEN V. ROE
[Opinion]
429 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Opinion]
429 UNITED STATES V. PARADISE
[Opinion]
429 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Dissent]
429 A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
429 DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN
[Opinion]
429 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 BAKER V. CARR
[Dissent]
429 CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR
[Opinion]
429 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[Opinion]
429 RENO V. ACLU
[Concurrence]
429 BOOTH V. MARYLAND
[Dissent]
429 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Opinion]
429 AFROYIM V. RUSK
[Dissent]
429 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Concurrence]
429 SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE
[Opinion]
429 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Syllabus]
429 ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Opinion]
429 ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
[Opinion]
429 BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
429 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON
[Opinion]
429 TRUAX V. RAICH
[Opinion]
429 MUELLER V. ALLEN
[Dissent]
429 EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS
[Opinion]
429 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Opinion]
429 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 IN RE WINSHIP
[Dissent]
429 UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN
[Opinion]
429 BOWSHER V. SYNAR
[Concurrence]
429 QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Syllabus]
429 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
429 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD
[Dissent]
429 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
429 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Opinion]
429 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
429 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Syllabus]
429 ********
[Dissent]
429 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Dissent]
429 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
429 MAHER V. ROE
[Opinion]
429 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Dissent]
429 GITLOW V. PEOPLE
[Opinion]
429 HOYT V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
429 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Opinion]
429 STREET V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
429 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Opinion]
429 REYNOLDS V. SIMS
[Syllabus]
429 SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 NIXON V. FITZGERALD
[Dissent]
429 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Opinion]
429 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Dissent]
429 ZEMEL V. RUSK
[Opinion]
429 POLICE DEP'T V. MOSLEY
[Opinion]
429 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Opinion]
429 UNITED STATES V. BUTLER
[Opinion]
429 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Concurrence]
429 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Opinion]
429 BLOCK V. HIRSH
[Syllabus]
429 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
429 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
339 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.
339 COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996)
[Syllabus]
339 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.
339 44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996).
[Syllabus]
339 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.
339 MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD.
[Syllabus]
339 UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).
[Syllabus]
339 BROWN V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
339 MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
[Syllabus]
339 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
339 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.
339
[Syllabus]
339 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."
339
[Syllabus]
339 WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339 LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC.
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339 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.
339
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339 RANDALL V. SORRELL
[Syllabus]
339 559 U. S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339 UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO.
[Syllabus]
339 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.
339 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997).
[Syllabus]
339 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.
339 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?
339 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?"
339 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.
339 BUSH V. VERA, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339 HUNT V. CROMARTIE
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339 FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM.
[Syllabus]
339 TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997)
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339 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?
339 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
339 KOWALSKI V. TESMER
[Syllabus]
339 PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1
[Syllabus]
339 MAHAN V. HOWELL
[Opinion]
339 WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
339 STONE V. GRAHAM
[Opinion]
339 WASHINGTON V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
339 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Dissent]
339 UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN
[Syllabus]
339 HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 EVANS V. NEWTON
[Dissent]
339 WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
[Dissent]
339 SPENCE V. WASHINGTON
[Opinion]
339 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
339 ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG
[Dissent]
339 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Dissent]
339 LUTHER V. BORDEN
[Dissent]
339 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
339 CHANDLER V. FLORIDA
[Concurrence]
339 BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC.
[Opinion]
339 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Dissent]
339 WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
[Opinion]
339 NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. SWANN
[Opinion]
339 UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN
[Syllabus]
339 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY
[Opinion]
339 QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP
[Syllabus]
339 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD
[Opinion]
339 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Concurrence]
339 YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC.
[Opinion]
339 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[]
339 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Concurrence]
339 UNITED STATES V. FORDICE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Opinion]
339 BOND V. FLOYD
[Opinion]
339 BALLEW V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
339 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Dissent]
339 TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON
[Dissent]
339 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
339 MUNN V. ILLINOIS
[Opinion]
339 GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
339 SANTOSKY V. KRAMER
[Dissent]
339 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Opinion]
339 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Dissent]
339 WOOLEY V. MAYNARD
[Opinion]
339 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concurrence]
339 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
339 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Opinion]
339 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Opinion]
339 APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE
[Dissent]
339 GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., INC.
[Syllabus]
339 FLETCHER V. PECK
[Syllabus]
339 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
339 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Opinion]
339 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Syllabus]
339 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
339 ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC.
[Opinion]
339 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
339 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 MORGAN V. VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
339 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
339 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Dissent]
339 JUREK V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
339 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Syllabus]
339 MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
339 DOE V. BOLTON
[Concurrence]
339 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Opinion]
339 MISSISSIPPI V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
339 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[]
339 AMBACH V. NORWICK
[Opinion]
339 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO.
[Opinion]
339 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
339 CRAIG V. BOREN
[Opinion]
339 MCLAURIN V. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS
[Opinion]
339 UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ
[Opinion]
339 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Dissent]
339 SHELTON V. TUCKER
[Dissent]
339 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Opinion]
339 MUELLER V. ALLEN
[Opinion]
339 NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY CO. V. WALLACE
[Opinion]
339 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Opinion]
339 GREER V. SPOCK
[Dissent]
339 CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE
[Opinion]
339 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Opinion]
339 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 KATZENBACH V. MORGAN
[Opinion]
339 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Concurrence]
339 POWERS V. OHIO
[Dissent]
339 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
339 UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY
[Dissent]
339 GRAYNED V. CITY OF ROCKFORD
[Dissent]
339 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Opinion]
339 GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
339 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Opinion]
339 ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS
[Opinion]
339 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Opinion]
339 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Syllabus]
339 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Dissent]
339 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concurrence]
339 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Concurrence]
339 MICHIGAN V. LONG
[Opinion]
339 BOOS V. BARRY
[Opinion]
339 KIRKPATRICK V. PREISLER
[Opinion]
339 ********
[Opinion]
339 UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP.
[Syllabus]
339 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
339 FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON
[Opinion]
339 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
339 PLYLER V. DOE
[Dissent]
339 KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS
[Syllabus]
339 HOLDEN V. HARDY
[Opinion]
339 LOVING V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
339 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
339 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING)
[Dissent]
339 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE
[Concurrence]
339 JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. V. WILSON
[Opinion]
339 SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
339 GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
339 ENMUND V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
339 KATZ V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
339 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Opinion]
339 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Concurrence]
339 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES
[Opinion]
339 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Syllabus]
339 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Opinion]
339 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Opinion]
339 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN
[Opinion]
339 UNITED STATES V. QUARLES
[Opinion]
339 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Opinion]
339 MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND
[Opinion]
339 EVANS V. ABNEY
[Opinion]
339 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Dissent]
339 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Opinion]
339 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Opinion]
339 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART
[Concurrence]
339 CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO.
[Syllabus]
339 ROE V. WADE
[Dissent]
339 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 NEAR V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
339 WILSON V. NEW
[Opinion]
339 BUTZ V. ECONOMOU
[Syllabus]
339 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Dissent]
339 MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO
[Syllabus]
339 MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES
[Syllabus]
339 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
339 BAKER V. CARR
[Concurrence]
339 FREEMAN V. PITTS
[Concurrence]
339 APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE
[Syllabus]
339 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
339 YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO
[Opinion]
339 ********
[Opinion]
339 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE
[Dissent]
339 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
339 PENNOYER V. NEFF
[Dissent]
339 WILSON V. SEITER
[Concurrence]
339 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Dissent]
339 PRIZE CASES
[Opinion]
339 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
339 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
339 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Concurrence]
339 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Syllabus]
339 SCHICK V. REED
[Dissent]
339 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Syllabus]
339 UNITED STATES V. FORDICE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Concurrence]
339 FLORIDA V. BOSTICK
[Opinion]
339 GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK
[Opinion]
339 LYNCH V. DONNELLY
[Concurrence]
339 JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO.
[Dissent]
339 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
339 BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN
[Opinion]
339 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
339 ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
[Syllabus]
339 TAYLOR V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
339 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Opinion]
339 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
339 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Dissent]
339 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
339 LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO
[Opinion]
339 MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ
[Dissent]
339 HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL
[Syllabus]
339 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Opinion]
339 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Dissent]
339 MORGAN V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
339 UNITED STATES V. SALERNO
[Dissent]
339 STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
339 UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO.
[Opinion]
339 ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK
[Dissent]
339 LYNCH V. DONNELLY
[Syllabus]
339 PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS
[Syllabus]
339 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Concurrence]
339 UNITED STATES V. SALERNO
[Syllabus]
339 UNITED STATES V. BUTLER
[Syllabus]
214 CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
214 NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214 HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 SMITH V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
214 CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
214 VAN ORDEN V. PERRY
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
214 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214 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.
214 RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996).
[Syllabus]
214 PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214
[Syllabus]
214 VIRGINIA V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214
[Syllabus]
214 WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 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?"
214
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214 LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 YSURSA V. POCATELLO ED. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214
[Syllabus]
214 ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 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?
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
[Syllabus]
214 MV. CHICAGO
[Syllabus]
214 LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214 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."
214
[Syllabus]
214 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
214 ARIZONA V. GANT
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214 MCMILLIAN V. MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, 520 U.S. 781 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214 OREGON V. ICE
[Syllabus]
214 DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
214 GONZALES V. RAICH
[Syllabus]
214 SOLE V. WYNER
[Syllabus]
214 HERRING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 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.
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214 DAVIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP.
[Syllabus]
214 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).
214 O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214 WALLACE V. KATO
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N
[Syllabus]
214 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
214 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 LOS ANGELES COUNTY V. HUMPHRIES
[Syllabus]
214 MORSE V. FREDERICK
[Syllabus]
214 TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 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?
214
[Syllabus]
214 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 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).
214 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.
214 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NOV.HOLDER
[Syllabus]
214 STERN V. MARSHALL
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
[Syllabus]
214 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
214 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
214 REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214 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.
214 CAPERTON V. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
214 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.
214
[Syllabus]
214 RILEY V. KENNEDY
[Syllabus]
214 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
214 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
214 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."
214 NEVADA COMMN ON ETHICS V. CARRIGAN
[Syllabus]
214 PEARSON V. CALLAHAN
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN
[Syllabus]
214 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."
214 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."
214 BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
214 LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY
[Syllabus]
214 HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995).
[Syllabus]
214 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
[Syllabus]
214 BRINEGAR V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 LOCKHART V. MCCREE
[Dissent]
214 MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP.
[Syllabus]
214 COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS
[Dissent]
214 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Dissent]
214 BURCH V. LOUISIANA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Syllabus]
214 TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON
[Opinion]
214 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Syllabus]
214 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Concurrence]
214 ROE V. WADE
[Syllabus]
214 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON
[Dissent]
214 ROE V. WADE
[Concurrence]
214 HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD
[Opinion]
214 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS
[Dissent]
214 STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
214 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
214 PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
[Dissent]
214 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
214 CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS
[Concurrence]
214 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
214 BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY
[Opinion]
214 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE
[Concurrence]
214 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Opinion]
214 YATES V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Concurrence]
214 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Dissent]
214 WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
214 ZEMEL V. RUSK
[Syllabus]
214 ALLEN V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
214 FORD V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
214 STEARNS V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
214 MAHAN V. HOWELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Opinion]
214 FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON
[Concurrence]
214 MASSIAH V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 FREEMAN V. PITTS
[Concurrence]
214 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Concurrence]
214 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. PATTERSON
[Opinion]
214 YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC.
[Dissent]
214 HARLOW V. FITZGERALD
[Opinion]
214 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
214 MULFORD V. SMITH
[Dissent]
214 BOARD OF ESTIMATE OF CITY OF NEW YORK V. MORRIS
[Opinion]
214 BOWEN V. ROY
[Opinion]
214 ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS
[Syllabus]
214 MICHIGAN V. LONG
[Dissent]
214 BUMPER V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
214 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
214 COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA V. WHITCOMB
[Opinion]
214 DOE V. BOLTON
[Syllabus]
214 CLARK V. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NONVIOLENCE
[Opinion]
214 PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS
[Concurrence]
214 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
214 STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
214 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Opinion]
214 BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC.
[Concurrence]
214 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 UNITED STATES V. GUEST
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 YOUNGER V. HARRIS
[Syllabus]
214 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Concurrence]
214 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 WICKARD V. FILBURN
[Opinion]
214 BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN
[Syllabus]
214 KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. ROSS
[Opinion]
214 CALDER V. BULL
[]
214 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
214 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
214 BOWSHER V. SYNAR
[Dissent]
214 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Concurrence]
214 CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Opinion]
214 HICKLIN V. ORBECK
[Opinion]
214 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Opinion]
214 TEXAS V. JOHNSON
[Opinion]
214 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN
[Concurrence]
214 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Dissent]
214 MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
[Syllabus]
214 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
214 POELKER V. DOE
[Opinion]
214 STREET V. NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
214 BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC.
[Syllabus]
214 FUENTES V. SHEVIN
[Opinion]
214 MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA
[Opinion]
214 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
214 STATE OF MISSOURI V. HOLLAND
[Syllabus]
214 GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
[Dissent]
214 WOOLEY V. MAYNARD
[Dissent]
214 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Concurrence]
214 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 STONE V. GRAHAM
[Syllabus]
214 HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 PLYLER V. DOE
[Concurrence]
214 SMITH V. GOGUEN
[Concurrence]
214 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
214 WHALEN V. ROE
[Syllabus]
214 NEW YORK V. CLASS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 COX V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
214 FUENTES V. SHEVIN
[Dissent]
214 PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE
[Dissent]
214 MASSACHUSETTS V. SHEPPARD
[Opinion]
214 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Dissent]
214 HUNT V. WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION
[Opinion]
214 CHANDLER V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
214 STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
[Syllabus]
214 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Concurrence]
214 UNITED STATES V. GUEST
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Concurrence]
214 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[Syllabus]
214 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
214 ********
[Opinion]
214 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 ENGEL V. VITALE
[Concurrence]
214 MULFORD V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
214 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Concurrence]
214 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO.
[Opinion]
214 INS V. CHADHA
[Concurrence]
214 RENO V. CONDON
[Opinion]
214 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
214 CLINTON V. JONES
[Syllabus]
214 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Syllabus]
214 GREER V. SPOCK
[Opinion]
214 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Concurrence]
214 JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
214 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
214 KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS
[Opinion]
214 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Dissent]
214 ********
[Opinion]
214 ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK
[Opinion]
214 ZORACH V. CLAUSON
[Opinion]
214 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Concurrence]
214 TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST.
[Opinion]
214 SCHNEIDER V. RUSK
[Opinion]
214 NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
[Dissent]
214 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
[Syllabus]
214 KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS
[Dissent]
214 FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1784 V. STOTTS
[Dissent]
214 MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA
[Syllabus]
214 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Syllabus]
214 BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC.
[Dissent]
214 KENDALL V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Syllabus]
214 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
214 STONE V. GRAHAM
[Dissent]
214 WARD V. ROCK AGAINST RACISM
[Dissent]
214 GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Concurrence]
214 GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
214 KATZENBACH V. MCCLUNG
[Syllabus]
214 LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
[Dissent]
214 ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Opinion]
214 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Opinion]
214 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Concurrence]
214 KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
[Dissent]
214 ********
[Dissent]
214 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN
[Dissent]
214 NEAR V. MINNESOTA
[Dissent]
214 REID V. COVERT
[Dissent]
214 COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA V. WHITCOMB
[Concurrence]
214 ZORACH V. CLAUSON
[Dissent]
214 SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR
[Opinion]
214 UNITED STATES V. JACKSON
[Dissent]
214 HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
214 BALLEW V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
214 MARTIN V. WILKS
[Dissent]
214 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Opinion]
214 BAKER V. CARR
[Concurrence]
214 LEHMAN V. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS
[Dissent]
214 MILLER V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
214 TERRY V. ADAMS
[]
214 KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
[Concurrence]
214 HOYT V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
214 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Syllabus]
214 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.
[Syllabus]
214 BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC.
[Opinion]
214 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
214 CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
[Dissent]
214 SCALES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ
[Syllabus]
214 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Dissent]
214 NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART
[Opinion]
214 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Syllabus]
214 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
214 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Concurrence]
214 MALLOY V. HOGAN
[Opinion]
214 UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION V. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD CO.
[Opinion]
214 CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO.
[Concurrence]
214 EX PARTE GARLAND
[Opinion]
214 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Dissent]
214 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 TROP V. DULLES
[Syllabus]
214 GOMEZ V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
214 TERRY V. ADAMS
[Opinion]
214 WILSON V. NEW
[Syllabus]
214 SHELTON V. TUCKER
[Dissent]
214 HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS
[Dissent]
214 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR
[Syllabus]
214 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
214 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES
[Syllabus]
214 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Dissent]
214 WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO.
[Opinion]
214 WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
214 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. BROWN
[Syllabus]
214 STATE OF MISSOURI V. HOLLAND
[Opinion]
214 BETTS V. BRADY
[Opinion]
214 UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG
[Opinion]
214 HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
214 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
214 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
214 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN COMPANY
[Syllabus]
214 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
214 JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA
[Dissent]
214 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Dissent]
214 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Dissent]
214 ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES
[Opinion]
214 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Syllabus]
214 PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS
[Opinion]
214 BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Syllabus]
214 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
214 WHALEN V. ROE
[Concurrence]
214 BOOS V. BARRY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.
[Opinion]
214 HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS
[Syllabus]
214 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
214 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Syllabus]
214 FLORIDA V. BOSTICK
[Syllabus]
214 MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES
[Dissent]
214 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON
[Concurrence]
214 VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METROPOLITAN
[Syllabus]
214 BATSON V. KENTUCKY
[Concurrence]
214 ALLEN V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
214 TEXAS V. JOHNSON
[Dissent]
214 MAHAN V. HOWELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
214 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Syllabus]
214 BELL V. OHIO
[Opinion]
214 MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE
[Opinion]
214 WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO.
[Syllabus]
214 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 UNITED STATES V. DARBY
[Opinion]
214 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
214 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Concurrence]
214 WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
[Opinion]
214 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Dissent]
214 MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO.
[Dissent]
214 HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG
[Syllabus]
214 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Dissent]
214 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 YOUNGER V. HARRIS
[Concurrence]
214 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Opinion]
214 HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Dissent]
214 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
214 NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 BEAL V. DOE
[Opinion]
214 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Concurrence]
214 KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
[Opinion]
214 POLICE DEP'T V. MOSLEY
[Syllabus]
214 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
214 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. MATLOCK
[Dissent]
214 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
214 UNITED STATES V. KLEIN
[Syllabus]
214 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Syllabus]
214 SCALES V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
214 UNITED STATES V. PINK
[Opinion]
214 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Syllabus]
214 DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN
[Concurrence]
214 WOOLEY V. MAYNARD
[Dissent]
214 SMITH V. GOGUEN
[Dissent]
214 ********
[Opinion]
214 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
214 COX V. LOUISIANA
[Concurrence]
214 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
214 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Dissent]
214 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Dissent]
214 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 COLEGROVE V. GREEN
[Dissent]
214 PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY
[Opinion]
214 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
214 UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL
[Syllabus]
214 ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
[Syllabus]
214 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Syllabus]
214 MATHEWS V. LUCAS
[Opinion]
214 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Concurrence]
214 STANLEY V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
214 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN
[Dissent]
214 STANLEY V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
214 WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Concurrence]
214 WARTH V. SELDIN
[Opinion]
214 HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG
[Opinion]
214 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Dissent]
214 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Opinion]
214 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Syllabus]
214 EX PARTE GARLAND
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. FORDICE
[Opinion]
214 SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR
[Dissent]
214 HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY
[Dissent]
214 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
214 BRANZBURG V. HAYES
[Dissent]
214 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD
[Concurrence]
214 EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
214 WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Concurrence]
214 FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK
[Opinion]
214 STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN
[Dissent]
214 ORR V. ORR
[Dissent]
214 MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN
[Dissent]
214 DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Syllabus]
214 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE
[Dissent]
214 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP.
[Opinion]
214 ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES
[Syllabus]
214 WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA
[Concurrence]
214 BLOCK V. HIRSH
[Dissent]
214 BRANDENBURG V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
214 BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 V. FRASER
[Concurrence]
214 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
214 INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON
[Opinion]
214 BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
214 BOOS V. BARRY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 NGUYEN V. INS
[Dissent]
214 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Dissent]
214 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Syllabus]
214 STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 MAPP V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
214 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
214 SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH
[Opinion]
214 BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA
[Syllabus]
214 CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB
[Dissent]
214 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
214 SHELLEY V. KRAEMER
[Opinion]
214 UNITED STATES V. MILLER
[Syllabus]
214 COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA V. WHITCOMB
[Syllabus]
214 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA
[Dissent]
214 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Concurrence]
214 SPENCE V. WASHINGTON
[Dissent]
214 BURCH V. LOUISIANA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 MALLOY V. HOGAN
[Dissent]
214 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA
[Dissent]
214 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY
[Syllabus]
214 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. KLEIN
[Dissent]
214 NGUYEN V. INS
[Opinion]
214 HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Opinion]
214 BATSON V. KENTUCKY
[Opinion]
214 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY
[Syllabus]
214 SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES
[Opinion]
214 IN RE PRIMUS
[Opinion]
214 HARLOW V. FITZGERALD
[Syllabus]
214 BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Opinion]
214 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Syllabus]
214 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD
[Syllabus]
214 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
214 OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
214 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA
[Dissent]
214 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Dissent]
214 LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
[Opinion]
214 CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
[Opinion]
214 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. FORDICE
[Concurrence]
214 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Syllabus]
214 CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO.
[Opinion]
214 SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES
[Dissent]
214 BUCHANAN V. WARLEY
[Opinion]
214 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY
[Opinion]
214 JOHNSON V. ROBISON
[Dissent]
214 PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
[Dissent]
214 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Dissent]
214 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Opinion]
214 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Dissent]
214 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE
[Opinion]
214 EX PARTE GARLAND
[Syllabus]
214 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Syllabus]
214 NEAR V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
214 GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE
[Opinion]
214 UNITED STATES V. MILLER
[Opinion]
214 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
214 NORRIS V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
214 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Opinion]
214 BALLEW V. GEORGIA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
[Dissent]
214 UNITED STATES V. BROWN
[Opinion]
214 ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY
[Opinion]
214 WARDEN V. HAYDEN
[Dissent]
214 GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
[Dissent]
214 NEW YORK V. CLASS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Opinion]
214 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Dissent]
214 STANLEY V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
214 GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., INC.
[Opinion]
214 WASHINGTON V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
214 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
214 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[Dissent]
214 BAKER V. CARR
[Syllabus]
214 TROP V. DULLES
[Concurrence]
214 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
[Dissent]
214 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Dissent]
214 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
214 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Syllabus]
214 BOOTH V. MARYLAND
[Dissent]
214 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
214 CITY OF RENTON V. PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC.
[Opinion]
214 PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD
[Syllabus]
214 EVANS V. ABNEY
[Dissent]
214 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
214 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY
[Syllabus]
214 MULLER V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
214 UNITED STATES V. SALERNO
[Dissent]
214 TRIMBLE V. GORDON
[Opinion]
214 BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
214 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA
[Dissent]
214 ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA
[Dissent]
214 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Syllabus]
214 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
214 ROWAN V. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Opinion]
214 MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES
[Opinion]
214 APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE
[Concurrence]
214 WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Dissent]
214 BUCHANAN V. WARLEY
[Syllabus]
214 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
1000 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
[Syllabus]
828
[Syllabus]
730 AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG.
[Syllabus]
682 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."
653 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
[Syllabus]
616 ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997).
[Syllabus]
610 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
610 KANSAS V. MARSH
[Syllabus]
610 PEARSON V. CALLAHAN
[Syllabus]
610 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
608 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.
608 FITZGERALD V. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM.
[Syllabus]
608 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.
583 RANDALL V. SORRELL
[Syllabus]
583 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY
[Syllabus]
574 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.
574 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD.
[Syllabus]
574 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?
574 UNITED STATES V. STEVENS
[Syllabus]
574
[Syllabus]
566 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Syllabus]
554 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
554 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.
554 MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD.
[Syllabus]
554 DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
554 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
545 BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
[Syllabus]
531 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
531
[Syllabus]
531
[Syllabus]
518 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.
518 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
518 KOWALSKI V. TESMER
[Syllabus]
518 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
518 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?
518 44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996).
[Syllabus]
518
[Syllabus]
506 U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
[Syllabus]
506 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC.
[Syllabus]
477 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.
477 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
477 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?
477 CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
[Syllabus]
477 UNITED STATES V. BOOKER
[Syllabus]
477 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
477 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?
477 POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. CITY OF VALDEZ
[Syllabus]
477 STERN V. MARSHALL
[Syllabus]
475 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
475 STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC. V. FLOR-IDA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
[Syllabus]
475
[Syllabus]
475 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
475 DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
475 ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD
[Syllabus]
475 WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY
[Syllabus]
475 UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO.
[Syllabus]
475 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
475 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."
460 CONNICK V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
460 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?
460 WISCONSIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL., 517 U.S. 1 (1996).
[Syllabus]
460
[Syllabus]
443 CAMRETA V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
443 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)?"
441
[Syllabus]
441 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)
[Syllabus]
441
[Syllabus]
441 LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997).
[Syllabus]
441 MV. CHICAGO
[Syllabus]
441
[Syllabus]
441 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?
441 UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995).
[Syllabus]
441 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.
441 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?"
441 GONZALES V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
441 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NOV.HOLDER
[Syllabus]
421 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
421 RIVERA V. ILLINOIS
[Syllabus]
420 BROWN V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
420 MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
[Syllabus]
420 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?"
420 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.
420 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?
420
[Syllabus]
420 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.
420 PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1
[Syllabus]
398 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.
398 MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
[Syllabus]
398 CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
398
[Syllabus]
398 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.
398 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?
398 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.
398
[Syllabus]
398 GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996)
[Syllabus]
373 DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
373 UNITED STATES V. PATANE
[Syllabus]
Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
373 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.
373 NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998)
[Syllabus]
373 UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).
[Syllabus]
344
[Syllabus]
344 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.
344 NEDER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
344
[Syllabus]
344 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."
344 TENNARD V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
344
[Syllabus]
344 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.
344 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)
[Syllabus]
344
[Syllabus]
344 CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
[Syllabus]
342 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.
342 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).
342 CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
[Syllabus]
342 COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996)
[Syllabus]
342 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.
342 O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995).
[Syllabus]
342 NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)
[Syllabus]
342 HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995).
[Syllabus]
342
[Syllabus]
342 ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
[Syllabus]
342
[Syllabus]
342
[Syllabus]
342 HUNT V. CROMARTIE
[Syllabus]
342 NEVADA COMMN ON ETHICS V. CARRIGAN
[Syllabus]
342 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
[Syllabus]
342 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?
342 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.
342
[Syllabus]
342 LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC.
[Syllabus]
342 VAN ORDEN V. PERRY
[Syllabus]
342 CAPERTON V. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
342
[Syllabus]
342 UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998)
[Syllabus]
342 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.
342
[Syllabus]
342
[Syllabus]
342 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.
342
[Syllabus]
342 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
342 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?
342 AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN
[Syllabus]
342 MORSE V. FREDERICK
[Syllabus]
342 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997).
[Syllabus]
342 LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995).
[Syllabus]
342
[Syllabus]
342
[Syllabus]
342 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.
342
[Syllabus]
342 LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY
[Syllabus]
342 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.
342 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."
308 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.
308 CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
308
[Syllabus]
308
[Syllabus]
308 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.
308
[Syllabus]
308 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.
308 HUI V. CASTANEDA
[Syllabus]
308 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.
308 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.
308 DOE V. REED
[Syllabus]
308
[Syllabus]
308 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996)
[Syllabus]
308 ENGQUIST V. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
[Syllabus]
308
[Syllabus]
308 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.
308 O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996)
[Syllabus]
308 UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
[Syllabus]
308
[Syllabus]
308 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.
308 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.
308 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
308 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.
308 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.
308 561 U. S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
308 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.
308 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."
308 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.
265 BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 BARTLETT V. STRICKLAND
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 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.
265 GONZALES V. RAICH
[Syllabus]
265 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.
265 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)
[Syllabus]
265 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
265 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
265 ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992).
[Syllabus]
265 MISSOURI V. JENKINS, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
[Syllabus]
265 HERRING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
265 EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997).
[Syllabus]
265 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.
265 RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO.
[Syllabus]
265 BOND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
265 ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998)
[Syllabus]
265 M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
265 MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE
[Syllabus]
265 INDIANA V. EDWARDS
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER
[Syllabus]
265 ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998)
[Syllabus]
265 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.
265
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 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."
265 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.
265
[Syllabus]
265 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?
265 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
265 LOS ANGELES COUNTY V. HUMPHRIES
[Syllabus]
265 TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
[Syllabus]
265 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.
265
[Syllabus]
265 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
265 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 MONSANTO CO. V. GEERTSON SEED FARMS
[Syllabus]
265 PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995).
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996).
[Syllabus]
265 VIETH V. JUBELIRER
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
265 BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997).
[Syllabus]
265 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."
265 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?
265 ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998)
[Syllabus]
265 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).
265 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.
265 SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
265 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.
265 FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
[Syllabus]
265 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
265 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
265 MCMILLIAN V. MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, 520 U.S. 781 (1997).
[Syllabus]
265 KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
[Syllabus]
265 OREGON V. ICE
[Syllabus]
265 SMITH V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
265 HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998)
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265
[Syllabus]
265 WILSON V. LAYNE
[Syllabus]
265 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.
265 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
265 HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
[Syllabus]
265 REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995).
[Syllabus]
265 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?
210 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?
210 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.
210
[Syllabus]
210 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 559 U. S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
210 LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996).
[Syllabus]
210 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?"
210 HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998)
[Syllabus]
210 BUSH V. VERA, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO.
[Syllabus]
210 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?
210 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.
210 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?
210 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.
210 BREWER V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
210 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
210 MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.
[Syllabus]
210 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
210 VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
[Syllabus]
210 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK
[Syllabus]
210 UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).
[Syllabus]
210 VAN V. GOLDSTEIN
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
210 O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 PADILLA V. KENTUCKY
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 HUDSON V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
210 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.
210 PEPPER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
210 ONTARIO V. QUON
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 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.
210 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).
210 SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
210 CONN V. GABBERT
[Syllabus]
210 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.
210 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?
210 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."
210 HIBBS V. WINN
[Syllabus]
210 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.
210 558 U. S. ____ (2009)
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 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."
210 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 RENO V. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONCOMM.
[Syllabus]
210 TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997)
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 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.
210 IOWA V. TOVAR
[Syllabus]
210 RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997)
[Syllabus]
210 DECK V. MISSOURI
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 CLARK V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
210 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."
210 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO
[Syllabus]
210 PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
210 MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995).
[Syllabus]
210 PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998)
[Syllabus]
210 MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
[Syllabus]
210 OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210
[Syllabus]
210 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?
210 STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)
[Syllabus]
210 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."
210 SCOTT V. HARRIS
[Syllabus]
210 WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER
[Syllabus]
Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
132
[Syllabus]
132 VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997)
[Syllabus]
132 UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
[Syllabus]
132 COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996).
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 BEHRENS V. PELLETIER, 516 U.S. 299 (1996).
[Syllabus]
132 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997)
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 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."
132 MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996).
[Syllabus]
132 ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 LILLY V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
132 BOWLES V. RUSSELL
[Syllabus]
132 HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)
[Syllabus]
132 WHORTON V. BOCKTING
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990)
[Syllabus]
132 SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997).
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 JOHNSON V. JONES, 515 U.S. 304 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 CARR V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132 KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 NEW YORK STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS V.LOPEZ TORRES
[Syllabus]
132 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 FCC V. AT&T INC.
[Syllabus]
132 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 BOBBY V. BIES
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 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.
132 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.
132 OHIO V. ROBINETTE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 IDAHO V. WRIGHT, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
[Syllabus]
132 HAYWOOD V. DROWN
[Syllabus]
132 SAN REMO HOTEL, L. P. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO
[Syllabus]
132 TURNER V. ROGERS
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 DODD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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."
132 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER
[Syllabus]
132 EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
[Syllabus]
132 DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996)
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132
[Syllabus]
132 ROPER V. SIMMONS
[Syllabus]
132 DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
132 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)
[Syllabus]
132 FRY V. PLILER
[Syllabus]
132 BRADSHAW V. STUMPF
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).
[Syllabus]
132 PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132 ARIZONA V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
132 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132 CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
132 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
132 IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
132 JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 CLINGMAN V. BEAVER
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD
[Syllabus]
132 CLARK V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 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)."
132 VIRGINIA V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
132 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
132 BURDICK V. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)
[Syllabus]
132 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N
[Syllabus]
132 WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 TENET V. DOE
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 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?
132
[Syllabus]
132 ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 YSURSA V. POCATELLO ED. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 BELL V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 WALLACE V. KATO
[Syllabus]
132 RICCI V. DESTEFANO
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 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.
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 AYERS V. BELMONTES
[Syllabus]
132 ARIZONA V. GANT
[Syllabus]
132 CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT
[Syllabus]
132 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
132 COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD.
[Syllabus]
132 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
132 UNITED STATES V. MARCUS
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 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.
132 HARRINGTON V. RICHTER
[Syllabus]
132 WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 SMITH V. SPISAK
[Syllabus]
132 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP.
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 DAVIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
132 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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."
132 FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132 KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996)
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 BENNIS V. MICHIGAN, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996)
[Syllabus]
132 SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).
[Syllabus]
132 BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132 MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132
[Syllabus]
132 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."
132 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).
132 RENO V. CONDON
[Syllabus]
Whether the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, contravenes constitutional principles of federalism.
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 RILEY V. KENNEDY
[Syllabus]
132 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."
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132 JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
[Syllabus]
132 SOLE V. WYNER
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998)
[Syllabus]
132 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."
132 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."
132
[Syllabus]
132 ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP.
[Syllabus]
132 KANSAS V. VENTRIS
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 HAWAII V. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS
[Syllabus]
132 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.
132 CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997)
[Syllabus]
132 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?
132
[Syllabus]
132 SHAW V. HUNT, 116 S.CT. 1894, 135 L.ED.2D 207 (1996)
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132
[Syllabus]
132 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
132 UNITED STATES V. RESENDIZ-PONCE
[Syllabus]
132 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]