List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court

This is a partial list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court during the tenure of Chief Justice

Chief Justice of the United States

The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...

William Rehnquist

William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...

(September 26, 1986 through September 3, 2005). The cases are listed chronologically based on the date that the Supreme Court

Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...

decided the case.

1986–1989

Case name	Citation	Summary \|-	Beginning of active duty of Chief Justice William Rehnquist William Rehnquist William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States... , September 26, 1986
Colorado v. Connelly Colorado v. Connelly Colorado v. Connelly, , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that was initiated by Francis Connelly, who insisted that his schizophrenic episode rendered him incompetent, nullifying his waiver of his Miranda rights.- Prior history :...		the involuntary statement of a criminal suspect uttered during a schizophrenic Schizophrenia Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social... episode but not coerced by the Government is not precluded from admission in court by the due process clause
Griffith v. Kentucky Griffith v. Kentucky Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.-Background:This case concerned the retrospective application of judge-made rules...		criminal defendants receive the benefit of new constitutional rules announced before their cases are final on direct review
Commissioner v. Groetzinger Commissioner v. Groetzinger Commissioner v. Groetzinger, is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which addressed the issue of what qualifies as being either a trade or business under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code...		addressed the issue of what qualifies as being either a trade or business under Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code Internal Revenue Code The Internal Revenue Code is the domestic portion of Federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of the United States Code...
Maryland v. Garrison Maryland v. Garrison Maryland v. Garrison, , is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the extent of discretion given to police officers acting in good faith...		reasonable belief by police in the validity of a search warrant Search warrant A search warrant is a court order issued by a Magistrate, judge or Supreme Court Official that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found....
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California		due process, personal jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction (United States) Personal jurisdiction, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, refers to a court's jurisdiction over the parties to a law suit, as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction... , Minimum contacts Minimum contacts Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state...
Arizona v. Hicks Arizona v. Hicks Arizona v. Hicks, , held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view.-Facts:On April 18, 1984, a bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks' apartment, striking and injuring a man in the apartment below. The police arrived and entered Hicks'...		probable cause relating to the plain view doctrine Plain view doctrine The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize--without a warrant--evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation. This doctrine is also regularly used by TSA Federal Government Officers while screening persons and property at U.S... under the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
United States v. Dunn United States v. Dunn United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 , is a U.S. Supreme Court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.-Investigation:...		open fields doctrine Open fields doctrine The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S...
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, , decided that the standard for withholding of removal set in INS v. Stevic, , was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy...		Asylum Asylum in the United States The United States honors the right of asylum of individuals as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees, who apply for asylum either overseas or after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually. Refugees compose about one-tenth of the total... applicants must show "well-founded fear" of persecution Persecution Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation,... to establish their eligibility
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. Debenedictus		substantive due process, the takings clause of the 5th Amendment
O'Connor v. Ortega O'Connor v. Ortega O'Connor v. Ortega, , is a United States Supreme Court decision on the Fourth Amendment rights of government employees with regard to administrative searches in the workplace, during investigations by supervisors for violations of employee policy rather than by law enforcement for criminal offenses...		Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... rights of public employees
Tison v. Arizona Tison v. Arizona Tison v. Arizona, like Enmund v. Florida, was a 5-4 decision in which the United States Supreme Court qualified the rule it set forth in Enmund...		Felony murder and the death penalty Felony Murder and the Death Penalty The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit imposing the death penalty for felony murder. The Supreme Court of the United States has created a two-part test to determine when the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for felony murder. Under Enmund v... : death penalty is constitutional for major participants in felonies who exhibit extreme indifference to human life, even if someone else personally kills the victim
McCleskey v. Kemp McCleskey v. Kemp McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 , was a United States Supreme Court court case, in which the death penalty sentencing of McCleskey for armed robbery and murder was upheld...		race discrimination and the death penalty
Pennsylvania v. Finley Pennsylvania v. Finley Pennsylvania v. Finley, was a United States Supreme Court case involving the right to counsel.-See also:* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 476* List of United States Supreme Court cases...		right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings
Saint Francis College v. al-Khazraji Saint Francis College v. al-Khazraji Saint Francis College v. al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.-Background:Al-Khazraji, a professor and U.S. citizen born in Iraq, filed suit against his former employer and its tenure committee for denying him tenure on the basis of his Arabian race in...		persons of Arabian ancestry may make claims for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux...
Hodel v. Irving Hodel v. Irving Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 , is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a statute ordering the escheat of fractional interests in real property which had been bequeathed to members of the Oglala Sioux tribe was an unconstitutional taking which required just...		Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... taking of fractional interests in Native American Native Americans in the United States Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as... lands
United States v. Salerno United States v. Salerno United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 , was a United States Supreme Court decision. It determined that the "Bail Reform Act of 1984", which permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially dangerous to other people...		upholding Bail Reform Act of 1984 as not violating Due Process or Excessive Bail clauses
Turner v. Safley Turner v. Safley Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two prison regulations. Citing the reduced liberty and greater security needs of the prison context, the Court declined to use the strict scrutiny standard of review...		free speech and marriage rights of prison inmates
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County		substantive due process, temporary taking
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz		not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:... to deprive an inmate of attending a religious service for "legitimate penological interests."
Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc. Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc. Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc. 482 U.S. 569 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an ordinance prohibiting all "First Amendment activities" in the Los Angeles International Airport was facially unconstitutional due to its...		constitutionality of broad free speech prohibitions
Edwards v. Aguillard Edwards v. Aguillard Edwards v. Aguillard, was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law...		constitutionality of mandating teaching of creation science Creation science Creation Science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology... in conjunction with evolution Evolution Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.Life on Earth...
South Dakota v. Dole South Dakota v. Dole South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered federalism and the power of the United States Congress under the Taxing and Spending Clause.-Background:...		use of federal funding to encourage changes in state laws—here, raising the drinking age in all states from 18 to 21
Puerto Rico v. Branstad Puerto Rico v. Branstad Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unanimously that Federal Courts have the power to enforce extraditions based on the Extradition Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution. The decision overruled a prior...		Federal court enforcement of extradition of fugitives
Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 , is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It addressed matters of First Amendment concern, particularly whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President...		free speech rights of federal employees
United States v. Stanley United States v. Stanley In United States v. Stanley , the United States Supreme Court found that a serviceman could not file a tort action against the federal government, even though the government secretly administered doses of LSD to the serviceman as part of an experimental program, because his injuries were found by...		soldier's tort claim related to Project MKULTRA Project MKULTRA Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human experimentation program, run by the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s, continued at least through the late 1960s, and used U.S... barred
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission Nollan v. California Coastal Commission In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 , the United States Supreme Court reviewed a regulation under which the California Coastal Commission required that an offer to dedicate a lateral public easement along the Nollans' beachfront lot be recorded on the chain of title to the...		Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... takings clause
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection...		freedom of speech in secondary school Secondary education in the United States In most jurisdictions, secondary education in the United States refers to the last six or seven years of statutory formal education. Secondary education is generally split between junior high school or middle school, usually beginning with sixth or seventh grade , and high school, beginning with... newspapers
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell Hustler Magazine v. Falwell In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 , the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision , that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.Thus,...		First Amendment; parody, emotional distress
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu A case in the United States Supreme Court, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Assibi Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 , shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence...		Federal courts of appeals United States court of appeals The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system... must review denials of motions to reopen immigration proceedings for abuse of discretion
Basic Inc. v. Levinson Basic Inc. v. Levinson Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the "fraud-on-the-market theory" as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases....		interpretation of SEC Rule 10b-5 SEC Rule 10b-5 SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, is one of the most important rules promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to its authority granted under § 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934... , market price manipulation
Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States over a dispute about the range of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion...		religious rights of Native American vs. public interest
South Carolina v. Baker South Carolina v. Baker South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that section 310 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 does not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution...		Federal requirement that state and local bonds Bond (finance) In finance, a bond is a debt security, in which the authorized issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay interest to use and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed maturity... be issued in registered form did not violate the Tenth Amendment Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
Huddleston v. United States Huddleston v. United States Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court removed a procedural obstacle to admitting evidence of a witness's motive, plan, or knowledge that had been imposed by some courts of appeals after reading Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence...		admissibility of prior "bad acts" under the Federal Rules of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence The is a code of evidence law governing the admission of facts by which parties in the United States federal court system may prove their cases, both civil and criminal. The Rules were enacted in 1975, with subsequent amendments....
California v. Greenwood California v. Greenwood California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home....		4th Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... ; even absent a warrant, the search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home
Maynard v. Cartwright Maynard v. Cartwright Maynard v. Cartwright 486 U. S. 356 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" standard for the application of the death penalty as defined by the Eighth Amendment was too vague....		cruel and unusual punishment, death penalty
Webster v. Doe Webster v. Doe Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that presented statutory and constitutional claims by a former CIA employee who alleged that his termination was the result of discrimination based on sexual orientation.The National Security Act of 1947 authorizes...		ability for CIA firings and hirings to be judicially reviewed
Schweiker v. Chilicky Schweiker v. Chilicky Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that established limitations on implied causes of action. The Court determined that a cause of action would not be implied for the violation of rights where the U.S...		no implied cause of action Implied cause of action Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law... in the Social Security Act
Frisby v. Schultz Frisby v. Schultz Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. , was a 1988 United States Supreme Court case that upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home...		First Amendment, privacy, restrictions on abortion Abortion Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced... protests
Morrison v. Olson Morrison v. Olson Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 , was a case that went before the Supreme Court of the United States. By a 7 to 1 margin, the Court ruled that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional...		independent counsel's office
Thompson v. Oklahoma Thompson v. Oklahoma Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 , was the first case since the moratorium on capital punishment was lifted in the United States in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a minor on grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment."...		8th Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... ; cruel and unusual punishment; capital punishment for juveniles under 16
Arizona v. Youngblood Arizona v. Youngblood Arizona v. Youngblood, , was an important United States Supreme Court case about the limits of Constitutional due process under criminal law.- Background :...		state's failure to preserve evidence in a criminal case, absent bad faith, is not a due process violation
Mistretta v. United States Mistretta v. United States Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.-Background:John Mistretta, who sold cocaine, argued that the sentencing guidelines he was facing were unconstitutional due to a gross distribution of authority by Congress resulting in a violation of...		United States Sentencing Commission United States Sentencing Commission The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency of the judicial branch of the federal government of the United States. It is responsible for articulating the sentencing guidelines for the United States federal courts... , separation of powers
Florida v. Riley Florida v. Riley Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.-Facts:...		aerial surveillance and the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the city of Richmond's minority set-aside program, which gave preference to minority business enterprises in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal...		Affirmative action Affirmative action Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.-Origins:The term... , constitutionality of minority business set-aside programs for municipal contracts
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding a state anti-plug molding law preempted because it partially duplicated and therefore interfered with federal patent law. The decision reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s earlier...		state anti-plug molding law Anti-plug molding law An anti-plug molding law is a statute, usually a state law, that prohibits the use of an original product, such as a boat hull, as a "plug" for making a mold to use to make copies of the original product... struck down under preemption Federal preemption Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,... doctrine for interfering with federal patent law United States patent law United States patent law was established "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" as provided by the United States Constitution. Congress implemented these...
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services		child welfare department's failure to protect a child from known child abuse does not violate due process
Teague v. Lane Teague v. Lane Teague v. Lane, , was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of newly announced rules of law in habeas corpus proceedings....		new constitutional rules do not generally apply retroactively to cases on collateral review
Blanton v. North Las Vegas Blanton v. North Las Vegas Blanton v. North Las Vegas, , was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the limitations of the Right to Trial by Jury....		Jury trial Jury trial A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge... is unnecessary for petty offenses
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602 , was the U.S. Supreme Court case that paved the way for random drug testing of public employees in "safety sensitive" positions....		requiring drug tests for railroad employees is not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Fourth Amendment and its implication on drug testing programs. The majority of the court upheld the drug testing program in United States Customs Service....		requiring drug tests for customs inspectors is not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 , was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court regarding the structure of the New York City Board of Estimate....		New York City Board of Estimate New York City Board of Estimate The New York City Board of Estimate was a governmental body in New York City, responsible for budget and land-use decisions. Under the charter of the newly amalgamated City of Greater New York the Board of Estimate and Apportionment was composed of eight ex officio members: the Mayor of New York... representation scheme was held to violate Equal Protection Clause Equal Protection Clause The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press		FBI rap sheets may not be disclosed to third parties under the Freedom of Information Act
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Indian Child Welfare Act governed adoptions of Indian children, and a tribal court had jurisdiction over a state court regardless of the location of birth of the...		held that the Indian Child Welfare Act Indian Child Welfare Act The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 is a Federal law that governs jurisdiction over the removal of Native American children from their families.-General:... governed the adoption of Indian children, and clarified the jurisdiction of the tribal court
Graham v. Connor Graham v. Connor Graham v. Connor, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or...		standard for claims for violations of the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al. Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al. Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 , is the touchstone case in which the United States Supreme Court laid out the law of interlocutory appeals for United States federal courts.-Facts:...		interlocutory appeal Interlocutory appeal An interlocutory appeal , in the law of civil procedure, is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the... s
Finley v. United States		pendent party jurisdiction Pendent party jurisdiction In the United States federal courts, pendent party jurisdiction refers to a court's power to adjudicate a claim against a party whom would otherwise not be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, because the claim arose from a common nucleus of operative fact.One well-known example of... , later overturned by statute
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 , was a court case argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 18, 1989. It concerned employment discrimination and was decided on June 5, 1989.-Facts:...		standard of evidence for disparate impact employment discrimination Employment discrimination Employment discrimination is discrimination in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation. It includes various types of harassment.... cases
Hernandez v. Commissioner Hernandez v. Commissioner Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to the Internal Revenue Code §170 charitable contribution deduction.- Facts :...		Scientology Scientology Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by science fiction and fantasy author L. Ron Hubbard , starting in 1952, as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics... courses do not qualify as charitable deductions under the Internal Revenue Code Internal Revenue Code The Internal Revenue Code is the domestic portion of Federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of the United States Code...
Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding ownership of copyright.-Facts:...		copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... , work for hire Work for hire A work made for hire is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work...
Martin v. Wilks Martin v. Wilks Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case brought by Robert K. Wilks challenging the validity of race-based hiring practices....		civil procedure in employment affirmative action
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons when sued for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.- Background information :Ray...		States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons under Section 1983
Texas v. Johnson Texas v. Johnson Texas v. Johnson, , was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant's act of flag burning was...		freedom of speech (flag burning)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism Ward v. Rock Against Racism Ward v. Rock Against Racism, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to a New York City regulation mandating the use of city provided sound systems and technicians to control the volume of concerts in...		freedom of speech, excessive noise
Granfinanciera v. Nordberg		Seventh Amendment Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. However, in some civil cases, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the right to a jury trial to the states in the fashion which... right to jury trials in bankruptcy proceedings
Penry v. Lynaugh Penry v. Lynaugh Penry v. Lynaugh, , sanctioned the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders because the Court determined executing the mentally retarded was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment...		Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... permits executing the mentally retarded; overruled by Atkins v. Virginia Atkins v. Virginia Atkins v. Virginia, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing the mentally retarded violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.-The case:...
Stanford v. Kentucky Stanford v. Kentucky Stanford v. Kentucky, , was a United States Supreme Court case that sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the crime. This decision came one year after Thompson v...		Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... permits executing offenders who were 16 or 17 years old at the time of the offense; overruled by Roper v. Simmons Roper v. Simmons Roper v. Simmons, was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the...
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services Webster v. Reproductive Health Services Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 , was a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions...		state funding for abortion Abortion Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced... rights
County of Allegheny v. ACLU County of Allegheny v. ACLU In County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 , the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of two recurring holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh. The first, a nativity scene , was placed on the grand staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse...

1990–1994

Case name	Citation	Summary
University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that neither common law evidentiary privilege, nor First Amendment academic freedom protects peer review materials that are relevant to charges of racial or...		peer review privilege not required by Federal Rules of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence The is a code of evidence law governing the admission of facts by which parties in the United States federal court system may prove their cases, both civil and criminal. The Rules were enacted in 1975, with subsequent amendments.... or First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. In Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company 493 U.S. 203 , the United States Supreme Court addressed whether customer deposits constituted taxable income to a public utility company.- Facts :...		customer deposits constituting taxable income Taxable income Taxable income refers to the base upon which an income tax system imposes tax. Generally, it includes some or all items of income and is reduced by expenses and other deductions. The amounts included as income, expenses, and other deductions vary by country or system. Many systems provide that... to a utility company
FW/PBS v. City of Dallas		regulation of "sexually oriented businesses"
Sullivan v. Zebley Sullivan v. Zebley Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 , was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits...		determination of SSI Supplemental Security Income Supplemental Security Income is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged , blind, or disabled. Although administered by the Social Security Administration, SSI is funded from the U.S. Treasury general funds, not the Social Security trust fund... benefits for children
Washington v. Harper Washington v. Harper Washington v. Harper 494 U.S. 210 is a case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.-Circumstances:...		permissibility of involuntary treatment Involuntary treatment Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without a person's consent. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatric treatment administered despite an individual's objections... of psychotic inmates
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.-Facts:Rene Martin...		search and seizure of nonresident alien in foreign country
Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an action by an employee for a breach of a labor union's duty of fair representation entitled him to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.-Facts:McLean...		scope of 7th Amendment Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. However, in some civil cases, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the right to a jury trial to the states in the fashion which... right to jury trial Jury trial A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge... in civil cases
Employment Division v. Smith Employment Division v. Smith Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 , is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was...		religious freedom with respect to drug use
Missouri v. Jenkins Missouri v. Jenkins Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 12, 1995 the Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned a District Court ruling that required the state of Missouri to correct de facto racial inequality in schools by funding salary increases and remedial...		power of federal courts to order taxation by state or local governments
Osborne v. Ohio Osborne v. Ohio Osborne v. Ohio, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. In so doing, the Court extended the holding of New York v...		states U.S. state A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of... have the power to ban possession of child pornography Child pornography Child pornography refers to images or films and, in some cases, writings depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child... without violating the First Amendment
Stewart v. Abend Stewart v. Abend Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 , was an important United States Supreme Court decision which held that a copyright owner has the exclusive right to permit the creation and exploitation of derivative works, regardless of potentially conflicting agreements by prior copyright holders.-Facts:Cornell...		rights of the successor of a copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... interest
Grady v. Corbin Grady v. Corbin Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that: "the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an...		double jeopardy Double jeopardy Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction... and subsequent prosecutions
Taylor v. United States		definition of "burglary" under certain sentence enhancement provisions of the federal criminal code
Burnham v. Superior Court of California Burnham v. Superior Court of California Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the transient jurisdiction of a forum state. All nine justices were unanimous concerning the judgment, but the Court issued a fractured decision...		physical presence as a requirement for personal jurisdiction
Duro v. Reina Duro v. Reina In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 , the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations...		Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over nonmember Indians
Westside School District v. Mergens Westside School District v. Mergens Westside School District v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 , was a case involving a school district's ability to hold classes on Bible study after school.-Background:...		Bible study clubs in schools
United States v. Eichman United States v. Eichman United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violative of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was argued together with the case United States v...		freedom of speech (flag burning)
Perpich v. Department of Defense Perpich v. Department of Defense Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning the Militia Clauses of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution in which the court held that the Congress of the United States may authorize members of the National Guard...		Congressional powers over U.S. National Guard
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic, Inc., , is a United States Supreme Court case related to Patent infringement in the Medical device industry...		premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , is a set of laws passed by Congress in 1938 giving authority to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to oversee the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. A principal author of this law was Royal S. Copeland, a three-term U.S. Senator from... is exempt from a finding of patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or...
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 , was a United States Supreme Court case that rejected the argument that a separate opinion privilege existed against libel. It was seen by legal commentators as the end of an era that began with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and continued with Gertz v...		First Amendment and defamation--no "opinion privilege"
Illinois v. Rodriguez Illinois v. Rodriguez Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 , is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises...		Fourth Amendment, "co-occupant consent rule"
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 , was a United States Supreme Court case argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990...		incompetent persons may not refuse medical treatment under the 14th Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
Hodgson v. Minnesota Hodgson v. Minnesota Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 , was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative.-Issue:The case concerned a Minnesota law...		requiring parental notification for abortion is constitutional with a judicial bypass provision
Walton v. Arizona Walton v. Arizona Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 , upheld two important aspects of the capital sentencing scheme in the U.S. state of Arizona — judicial sentencing and the aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" — as not unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has overruled the first of...		Capital punishment Capital punishment Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally... and sentencing procedure, partially overruled by Ring v. Arizona Ring v. Arizona Ring v. Arizona, , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, , to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Ring overruled a portion of...
Maryland v. Craig Maryland v. Craig Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution...		the right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses
Perry v. Louisiana Perry v. Louisiana Perry v. Louisiana is a case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of the forcibly medicating a death row inmate with a mental disorder in order to render him competent to be executed.-Circumstances:...		forcibly medicating Involuntary treatment Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without a person's consent. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatric treatment administered despite an individual's objections... a death row Death row Death row signifies the place, often a section of a prison, that houses individuals awaiting execution. The term is also used figuratively to describe the state of awaiting execution , even in places where no special facility or separate unit for condemned inmates exists.After individuals are found... inmate with a mental disorder in order to make sure he is competent to be executed Competency evaluation (law) In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process.... is impermissible
Cheek v. United States Cheek v. United States In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 , the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction of John L. Cheek, a tax protester, for willful failure to file tax returns and pay tax...		mistake of law is a valid defense to criminal tax evasion Tax evasion Tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, corporations, trusts and other entities to evade taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability,... because of mens rea Mens rea Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 , United States Supreme Court case "hasten[ing] the end of federal court desegregation orders." The Court held that a federal desegregation order should be ended even though it meant that that schools would become...		case "hasten[ing] the end of federal court desegregation orders.
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla.		an Indian tribe was not subject to state sales tax for sales to tribal members
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.		minimal quantum of creativity is required for copyright protection
Cottage Savings Ass'n v. Commissioner		income tax Income tax in the United States In the United States, a tax is imposed on income by the Federal, most states, and many local governments. The income tax is determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income as defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and... consequences of mortgage Mortgage loan A mortgage loan is a loan secured by real property through the use of a mortgage note which evidences the existence of the loan and the encumbrance of that realty through the granting of a mortgage which secures the loan... interest exchange, examination of the consequences of the Savings and Loan crisis Savings and Loan crisis The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States...
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that United States federal courts will enforce forum selection clauses so long as the clause is not unreasonably burdensome to the party seeking to escape it.-Facts:The plaintiffs,...		enforcement of forum selection clause Forum selection clause A forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any litigation resulting from that contract will be initiated in a specific forum... s
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin County of Riverside v. McLaughlin The U.S. Supreme Court Case County of Riverside v. McLaughin involved the question of whether suspects arrested without a warrant must be brought into court within a reasonable amount of time to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody.-Overview:The County of...		suspects arrested without a warrant must be brought into court for a probable cause determination within 48 hours
Rust v. Sullivan Rust v. Sullivan Rust v. Sullivan, , was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1991. The case concerned the legality and constitutionality of Department of Health and Human Services regulations on the use of funds spent by the U.S. federal government to promote family planning...		government is not required to fund abortion
Hernandez v. New York Hernandez v. New York Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony....		prosecutor may use peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason... against bilingual Latino jurors based on his doubts about the ability of such jurors to defer to the official translation of Spanish-language testimony
Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 deals with First Amendment rights and Unions in public employment. Due to collective bargaining laws in some states , employees in the public sector are often required to either join a union or pay a “service fee” to a union Lehnert v. Ferris...		unions Trade union A trade union, trades union or labor union is an organization of workers that have banded together to achieve common goals such as better working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members and negotiates labour contracts with... may compel contributions from nonmembers only for the costs of performing its duties as exclusive bargaining agent Collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements that regulate working conditions...
California v. Acevedo California v. Acevedo California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 , was a decision made by the United States Supreme Court, which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches...		police may search a container in a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky, a criminal...		Batson Batson v. Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race... s prohibition on race-based use of peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason... s applies in civil trials
Connecticut v. Doehr Connecticut v. Doehr Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statute that authorizes prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a requirement that the person...		Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States. It is bordered by Rhode Island to the east, Massachusetts to the north, and the state of New York to the west and the south .Connecticut is named for the Connecticut River, the major U.S. river that approximately... state statute that authorizes prejudgment attachment Attachment (law) Attachment is a legal process by which a court of law, at the request of a creditor, designates specific property owned by the debtor to be transferred to the creditor, or sold for the benefit of the creditor. A wide variety of legal mechanisms are employed by debtors to prevent the attachment of... of real estate Real estate In general use, esp. North American, 'real estate' is taken to mean "Property consisting of land and the buildings on it, along with its natural resources such as crops, minerals, or water; immovable property of this nature; an interest vested in this; an item of real property; buildings or... without prior notice or hearing violated the 14th Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v... right to due process
Toibb v. Radloff Toibb v. Radloff Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court resolved that individuals are eligible to file for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code ....		holding that individual debtors may file for bankruptcy Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy in the United States is governed under the United States Constitution which authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, most recently by adopting the Bankruptcy... under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code Chapter 11 is a chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which permits reorganization under the bankruptcy laws of the United States. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is available to every business, whether organized as a corporation or sole proprietorship, and to individuals, although it is most...
McNeil v. Wisconsin McNeil v. Wisconsin McNeil v. Wisconsin, , held that the right to counsel secured by the Sixth Amendment and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona, , are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.- Facts :...		differences between the rights secured by the Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... and the Sixth Amendment Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
Florida v. Bostick Florida v. Bostick Florida v. Bostick, , overturned a per se rule imposed by the Florida Supreme Court that held consensual searches of passengers on buses were always unreasonable...		random bus searches routinely conducted pursuant to passenger's consent
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on freedom of speech and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct...		First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... and the restriction of nude dancing
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that freedom of the press does not exempt journalists from generally applicable laws....		First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... , freedom of the press Freedom of the press Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials...
Payne v. Tennessee Payne v. Tennessee Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 was a United States Supreme Court which held that testimony on the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Payne overruled two of...		admissibility of victim impact statement Victim impact statement A victim impact statement is a written or oral statement made as part of the judicial legal process, which allows a victim of crime the opportunity to speak during the sentencing of their attacker or at subsequent parole hearings. In some instances videotaped statements are... s, stare decisis Stare decisis Stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions... could be disregarded where fairness to victim's rights had priority over the demands of consistency in the common law.
Peretz v. United States Peretz v. United States Peretz v. United States, was a Supreme Court of the United States case. The Court affirmed that a defendant in a federal criminal trial on a felony charge must affirmatively object to the supervising of jury selection by a magistrate judge, ruling that it is not enough that the defendant merely...		role of magistrate Magistrate A magistrate is an officer of the state; in modern usage the term usually refers to a judge or prosecutor. This was not always the case; in ancient Rome, a magistratus was one of the highest government officers and possessed both judicial and executive powers. Today, in common law systems, a... judges in jury Jury A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,... selection in a felony Felony A felony is a serious crime in the common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors... trial
Harmelin v. Michigan Harmelin v. Michigan Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution...		life imprisonment Life imprisonment Life imprisonment is a sentence of imprisonment for a serious crime under which the convicted person is to remain in jail for the rest of his or her life... for cocaine Cocaine Cocaine is a crystalline tropane alkaloid that is obtained from the leaves of the coca plant. The name comes from "coca" in addition to the alkaloid suffix -ine, forming cocaine. It is a stimulant of the central nervous system, an appetite suppressant, and a topical anesthetic... possession
Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, , was a Supreme Court case dealing with Son of Sam laws, which are state laws that prevent convicted criminals from publishing books about their crime for profit...		holding that New York's Son of Sam law Son of Sam law A Son of Sam Law is any American law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers. However, this is not in the same manner of asset forfeiture, which is intended to seize assets acquired directly as a result of criminal... violated the First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 , confirmed finally that the Attorney General of the United States has broad discretion to reopen deportation proceedings, as well as other adjudications heard before immigration courts.-Facts:John Patrick Doherty was a citizen of...		U.S. Attorney General has broad discretion to reopen deportation Deportation Deportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation... proceedings
INS v. Elias-Zacarias		asylum Asylum in the United States The United States honors the right of asylum of individuals as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees, who apply for asylum either overseas or after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually. Refugees compose about one-tenth of the total... on account of political opinion must be based on the refugee's political opinion
Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board		employer can exclude nonemployee union organizers from private company property Private property Private property is the right of persons and firms to obtain, own, control, employ, dispose of, and bequeath land, capital, and other forms of property. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which refers to assets owned by a state, community or government rather than by...
Hudson v. McMillian Hudson v. McMillian Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 , is a United States Supreme Court decision where the Court on a 7-2 vote held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury.-Opinion:Justice Sandra Day...		excessive force against prison Prison A prison is a place in which people are physically confined and, usually, deprived of a range of personal freedoms. Imprisonment or incarceration is a legal penalty that may be imposed by the state for the commission of a crime... inmates, 8th Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual...
INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner INDOPCO v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court.-Question presented:Are certain professional expenses incurred by a target corporation in the course of a friendly takeover deductible by that corporation as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses...		Expenditures incurred by a target corporation in the course of a friendly takeover Takeover In business, a takeover is the purchase of one company by another . In the UK, the term refers to the acquisition of a public company whose shares are listed on a stock exchange, in contrast to the acquisition of a private company.- Friendly takeovers :Before a bidder makes an offer for another... are nondeductible capital expenditures under the Internal Revenue Code Internal Revenue Code The Internal Revenue Code is the domestic portion of Federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of the United States Code...
United States v. Felix United States v. Felix United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “a[n]…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” The Supreme Court rejected the Tenth Circuit's reversal of Felix's conviction,...		conviction of a defendant for a crime and for a conspiracy Conspiracy (crime) In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement... to commit the same offense does not create double jeopardy Double jeopardy Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction...
United States Department of Commerce v. Montana		formula used for reapportionment
Jacobson v. United States Jacobson v. United States Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the criminal procedure topic of entrapment...		entrapment Entrapment In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability... occurs when government creates predisposition to commit offense where it did not exist
Foucha v. Louisiana Foucha v. Louisiana Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court addressed the criteria for the continued commitment of an individual who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity...		criteria for the continued involuntary commitment Involuntary commitment Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital or in the community .... of an individual who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity
Riggins v. Nevada Riggins v. Nevada Riggins v. Nevada, is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial....		Forced psychiatric medication Involuntary treatment Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without a person's consent. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatric treatment administered despite an individual's objections... during trial violated defendant's rights under Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 is a Supreme Court ruling concerning use tax. Quill Corporation is an office supply retailer...		Requiring out-of-state mail order vendor to collect use tax Use tax A use tax is a type of excise tax levied in the United States. It is assessed upon otherwise "tax free" tangible personal property purchased by a resident of the assessing state for use, storage or consumption of goods in that state , regardless of where the purchase took place... unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce
United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.- Background :The legal dispute in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company arose when officials from the U.S...		taxation of firearms
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, , was a United States Supreme Court case decided on June 12, 1992, in which the court held that a group of American wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge regulations jointly issued by the U.S...		Standing Standing (law) In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case... in a suit to enforce the Endangered Species Act Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is one of the dozens of United States environmental laws passed in the 1970s. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973, it was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and...
United States v. Alvarez-Machain		application of the Ker-Frisbie doctrine Ker-Frisbie Doctrine The Ker-Frisbie doctrine is applied in the context of extradition and generally holds that criminal defendants may be prosecuted in United States courts regardless of whether their presence has been obtained through the use of applicable extradition treaties.- History :In Ker v...
Morgan v. Illinois Morgan v. Illinois Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.-Background:In an elaboration of the Witherspoon v. Illinois doctrine, the Rehnquist Court considered challenges to the selection of jurors who would automatically vote to impose the death penalty on a defendant...		A defendant Defendant A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute... facing the death penalty may challenge for cause a prospective juror who would automatically vote to impose the death penalty in every case
Georgia v. McCollum Georgia v. McCollum Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in Batson v. Kentucky that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race,...		standard on peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason... s from Batson v. Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race... applied to criminal defendant
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association In Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88 , the United States Supreme Court determined that federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations preempted various Illinois provisions for licensing workers who handled hazardous waste...		federal preemption Federal preemption Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,... of state labor safety laws
Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court limited the ability of local governments to charge fees for the use of public places for private activities...		1st Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... protection and police Police The police is a personification of the state designated to put in practice the enforced law, protect property and reduce civil disorder in civilian matters. Their powers include the legitimized use of force... protection
New York v. United States New York v. United States New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce...		the take title provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 violated the 10th Amendment Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co. Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co. Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the application of state franchise taxes to out-of-state businesses.-Background:...		permissible scope of taxation of out-of-state corporations Foreign corporation A foreign corporation is a term used in the United States for an existing corporation that is registered to do business in a state or other jurisdiction other than where it was originally incorporated... doing business within a particular state U.S. state A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of... .
R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, was a United States Supreme Court case involving hate speech and the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A unanimous Court struck down St...		fighting words, hate speech
Lee v. Weisman Lee v. Weisman Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 , was a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court. It involved prayers led by religious authority figures at public school graduation ceremonies...		First Amendment, establishment of religion (prayer at high school graduations)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey Planned Parenthood v. Casey Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state regulations regarding abortion were challenged...		abortion Abortion Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced... ; reaffirming the "core holding" of Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade, , was a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,...
United States v. Fordice United States v. Fordice United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in an eight to one ruling that the eight public universities in Mississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must take affirmative action to change this under the Equal Protection Clause...		segregation of colleges and universities
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.-Parties:Plaintiff/Petitioner :...		per se rule of takings clause
Commissioner v. Soliman Commissioner v. Soliman Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168 , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in which the court decided whether a portion of a dwelling unit exclusively used as a principal place of business for any trade or business of a taxpayer would allow a deduction to the taxpayer's income...		"principal place of business" under the Internal Revenue Code Internal Revenue Code The Internal Revenue Code is the domestic portion of Federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of the United States Code...
Nixon v. United States Nixon v. United States Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the question of whether the Senate had properly "tried" an impeachment was a political question, and could not be resolved in the Courts.-Facts:...		judicial impeachment Impeachment Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as other punishment.... , political question Political question In American Constitutional law, the political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and... doctrine
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, was a United States abortion rights case , which affirmed that Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 could not be used to halt blockades of abortion clinics.-See also:...		Civil Rights Act of 1871 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux... could not be used to halt blockades of abortion clinics
Herrera v. Collins Herrera v. Collins Herrera v. Collins, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a claim that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the execution of one who is actually innocent is not ground for federal habeas relief.-Background:On September 29, 1981,...		claim of actual innocence Actual innocence Actual innocence is a state of affairs in which a defendant in a criminal case is innocent of the charges against them because they did not in fact commit the crime of which they have been accused.... is not grounds for federal habeas corpus Habeas corpus is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations... relief
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the assertion that attempted monopolization may be proven merely by demonstration of unfair or predatory conduct...		quantum of proof required for a claim of attempted monopolization Monopolization The term monopolization refers to an offense under Section 2 of the American Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890. Section 2 states that any person "who shall monopolize . .... under § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by...
Shaw v. Reno Shaw v. Reno Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 , was a United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the...		appropriateness of considering race in redistricting
Reno v. Flores Reno v. Flores Reno v. Flores, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.-Statute:Under 8 U.S.C.S. 1252, an alien detained pending a deportation hearing generally may, in the discretion of the United States Attorney General, be continued in custody; released under a bond containing such conditions as...		procedures for detaining juvenile aliens awaiting deportation
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson Saudi Arabia v. Nelson Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the term "based upon a commercial activity" within the meaning of the first clause of 1605 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.- Background :...		jurisdiction in an action based upon a "commercial activity" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391, 1441, and 1602-1611 of the United States Code, that establishes the limitations as to whether a foreign sovereign nation may be sued in U.S. courts—federal or state...
Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a ban by the city of Cincinnati on the distribution of commercial material via news racks violated the First Amendment....		First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... protections against restrictions on distributing handbills
United States Department of Justice v. Landano		Freedom of Information Act and confidentiality
Mertens v. Hewitt Associates Mertens v. Hewitt Associates Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 , is the second in the trilogy of United States Supreme Court ERISA preemption cases that effectively denies any remedy for employees who are harmed by medical malpractice or other bad acts of their health plan if they receive their health care from their...		Preemption Federal preemption Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,... , non-fiduciary liability under ERISA
Wisconsin v. Mitchell Wisconsin v. Mitchell Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It was a landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation...		enhanced sentencing for hate crimes and the First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida that forbade the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food...		animal cruelty, freedom of religion
Minnesota v. Dickerson Minnesota v. Dickerson Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 , was a 1993 Supreme Court of the United States case. Decided June 7, 1993, the Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even...		seizure of contraband during stop & frisk
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with...		access by religious groups to public school facilities
South Dakota v. Bourland South Dakota v. Bourland South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.-History:In 1868,...		an Indian tribes hunting and fishing rights were terminated on land the Federal government acquired for a reservoir
Sale v. Haitian Centers Council Sale v. Haitian Centers Council Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 is a case in which U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President's executive order that all aliens intercepted on the high seas could be repatriated and that executive order was not limited by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or Article 33 of...		illegal immigration
Godinez v. Moran Godinez v. Moran Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.-Circumstances:...		competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving the right to counsel is the same as the competency standard for standing trial
Alexander v. United States		RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization... 's forfeiture provision does not violate the First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts...		federal judges as gatekeepers for allowing expert witnesses to testify in trials; see also Daubert Standard Daubert Standard The Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude...
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 113 S.Ct. 2891 , was a controversial United States Supreme Court case which held that foreign companies acting in foreign countries could nevertheless be held liable for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act if they conspired to restrain trade within the...		application of Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by... to foreign companies
Fogerty v. Fantasy Fogerty v. Fantasy Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that elaborated the standards that should factor into a district court's decision to award attorney's fees in copyright litigation...		attorney's fees in copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... litigation
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use...		copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... , commercial fair use Fair use Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders... is possible, parody Parody A parody , in current usage, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on, or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation...
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore.		Commerce Clause Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional. J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in Batson v...		peremptory jury challenges based on sex violate equal protection clause
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver		private plaintiffs may not maintain an aiding and abetting Aiding and abetting Criminal=Aiding and abetting is an additional provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act as an agent of the charged, working together with or... lawsuit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , , codified at et seq., is a law governing the secondary trading of securities in the United States of America. It was a sweeping piece of legislation...
Landgraf v. USI Film Products		retroactive application of statutory amendments effective while cases are pending in court
C&A Carbone, Inc v. Town of Clarkstown		Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause The "Dormant" Commerce Clause, also known as the "Negative" Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution...
Waters v. Churchill Waters v. Churchill Waters v. Churchill, , is a 1994 decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace...		Due process rights of public employees in workplace when alleging violations of First Amendment rights
Farmer v. Brennan Farmer v. Brennan Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a prison official's "deliberate indifference" to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment...		civil liability under the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... for rape of a transgender Transgender Transgender is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles.... prison inmate
Dolan v. City of Tigard Dolan v. City of Tigard Dolan v. City of Tigard, , more commonly Dolan v. Tigard, was a United States Supreme Court case argued before the Court in 1994. It was a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies, to...		Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... takings clause
Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission		upholding must-carry Must-carry In cable television, governments apply a must-carry regulation stating that locally-licensed television stations must be carried on a cable provider's system.- Canada :... rules against cable television Cable television Cable television is a system of providing television programs to consumers via radio frequency signals transmitted to televisions through coaxial cables or digital light pulses through fixed optical fibers located on the subscriber's property, much like the over-the-air method used in traditional... provider's First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... challenge
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet		school district coinciding with religious community
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.		first amendment, restrictions on abortion Abortion Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced... protests
United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court laid out the constitutional limitations for the use of contempt powers by courts.-Facts:...		constitutional limitations on the contempt Contempt of court Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority... powers of court Court A court is a form of tribunal, often a governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law... s
United States v. Shabani United States v. Shabani United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding conspiracy liability under federal statutes...		elements of criminal conspiracy Conspiracy (crime) In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement... (i.e., requirement for an overt act)
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.

1995–1999

Case name	Citation	Summary
Schlup v. Delo Schlup v. Delo Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court expanded the ability to reopen a case in light of new evidence of innocence.Petitioner Lloyd E...		Standard of proof required for a habeas corpus Habeas corpus is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations... petition to reopen a case in light of new evidence of innocence
Arizona v. Evans Arizona v. Evans Arizona v. Evans, , instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrant-less search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.-Background:On December 13, 1990, a...		Exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law... does not require suppressing evidence Evidence (law) The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence... obtained through good-faith reliance on a search warrant Search warrant A search warrant is a court order issued by a Magistrate, judge or Supreme Court Official that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found.... that contains a clerical error
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act, provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market.-Facts and Procedural...		color trademarks are appropriate subject matter under the Lanham Act Lanham Act The Lanham Act is a piece of legislation that contains the federal statutes of trademark law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.-History:Named for Representative Fritz G...
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress may not retroactively require federal courts to reopen final judgments...		separation of powers Separation of powers The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic... and finality Finality (law) Finality, in law, is the concept that certain disputes must achieve a resolution from which no further appeal may be taken, and from which no collateral proceedings may be permitted to disturb that resolution... of judgments
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional...		anonymous campaign literature under the First Amendment
United States v. Lopez United States v. Lopez United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.-Background:...		interstate commerce, gun-free school zones
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 ,was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional...		preventing states from enacting term limits to the US House and Senate
First Options v. Kaplan First Options v. Kaplan , 514 U.S. 938 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.-See also:* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514* List of United States Supreme Court cases* Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume...		independent judicial review of arbitration clause Arbitration clause An arbitration clause is a commonly used clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process...
Adarand Constructors v. Peña		constitutionality of race-based set-asides (strict scrutiny test)
Witte v. United States		using "relevant conduct", as defined by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Federal Sentencing Guidelines The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system... , at sentencing does not violate double jeopardy principles
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to assemble and for groups to determine what message is actually conveyed to the public...		First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... freedom of association as applied to a private parade organizer seeking to exclude a group inconsistent with its stated message
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. In Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., , the Supreme Court upheld a state's restriction on lawyer advertising under the First Amendment's commercial speech doctrine. The Court's decision was the first time it did so since Bates v...		under the commercial speech doctrine of the First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... , states may forbid lawyers from directly soliciting personal injury cases for short periods of time after an accident or a disaster
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing regimen implemented by the local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon. Under that regimen, student athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being...		constitutionality of public school drug testing; Fourth Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... and Fourteenth Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v... Amendments
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinnette		display of religious symbols on government property
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia Rosenberger v. University of Virginia Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, , was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistently with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student...		discrimination by state universities against student religious organizations
Miller v. Johnson Miller v. Johnson Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning "affirmative gerrymandering/racial gerrymandering", where racial minority majority electoral districts are created during redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.The case was brought to court...		racial gerrymandering Gerrymandering In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts...
Bailey v. United States Bailey v. United States Bailey v. United States, , interpreted a frequently used section of the federal criminal code. At the time of the decision, imposed a mandatory, consecutive five-year prison term on anyone who "during and in relation to any... drug trafficking crime.....		meaning of "use" in federal statute imposing a five-year prison sentence on anyone who "uses" a firearm during or in relation to a drug crime or a crime of violence
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.		scope of software copyright Software copyright Software copyright is the extension of copyright law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software... s
Behrens v. Pelletier Behrens v. Pelletier Behrens v. Pelletier, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held a defendant's immediate appeal of an unfavorable qualified immunity ruling on a motion to dismiss does not deprive the court of appeals of jurisdiction over a second appeal, also based on qualified...		appeal Appeal An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.... over ruling on qualified immunity Qualified immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 . Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the...
Hercules, Inc. v. United States		liability for producing Agent Orange Agent Orange Agent Orange is the code name for one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth...
Bennis v. Michigan Bennis v. Michigan Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture....		held that innocent owner defense Innocent owner defense An innocent owner defense is a concept in United States law providing for an affirmative defense that applies when an owner claims that they are innocent of a crime and therefore their property should not be forfeited... is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v... Due Process Due process Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it... in cases of civil forfeiture
Seminole Tribe v. Florida Seminole Tribe v. Florida Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment...		Article I Article One of the United States Constitution Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. The Article establishes the powers of and limitations on the Congress, consisting of a House of Representatives composed of Representatives, with each state gaining or... and the 11th Amendment Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v...
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 , is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact...		claim construction Claim (patent) Patent claims are the part of a patent or patent application that defines the scope of protection granted by the patent. The claims define, in technical terms, the extent of the protection conferred by a patent, or the protection sought in a patent application... of patent Patent A patent is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention.... s
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island		restrictions on commercial speech
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 , was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.-Facts:...		whether punitive damages Punitive damages Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit... are limited by substantive due process; 14th Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
Smiley v. Citibank Smiley v. Citibank Smiley v. Citibank, , is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a regulation of the Comptroller of Currency which included credit card late fees and other penalties within the definition of interest and thus prevented individual states from limiting them when charged by nationally-chartered...		Credit card Credit card A credit card is a small plastic card issued to users as a system of payment. It allows its holder to buy goods and services based on the holder's promise to pay for these goods and services... late fee Late fee A late fee, also known as a late fine or a past due fee, is a charge levied against a client by a company or organization for not paying a bill or returning a rented or borrowed item by its due date. Its use is most commonly associated with businesses like creditors, video rental outlets and... s can be considered interest and thus not subject to regulation by states other than those of bank's location when charged by national banks.
Romer v. Evans Romer v. Evans Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with LGBT rights since Bowers v...		equal protection limitation on forbidding elimination of discrimination on the basis of homosexuality Homosexuality Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same...
Jaffee v. Redmond Jaffee v. Redmond In Jaffee v. Redmond, , the Supreme Court of the United States created a psychotherapist-patient privilege in the Federal Rules of Evidence.-Facts:...		federal evidentiary privilege Physician-patient privilege Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and his or her doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions... for medical confidentiality Confidentiality Confidentiality is an ethical principle associated with several professions . In ethics, and in law and alternative forms of legal resolution such as mediation, some types of communication between a person and one of these professionals are "privileged" and may not be discussed or divulged to...
Gasperini v. Center For Humanities, Inc.		7th Amendment Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. However, in some civil cases, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the right to a jury trial to the states in the fashion which... , modern interpretation of the Erie doctrine Erie doctrine In United States law, the Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure mandating that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law....
United States v. Virginia United States v. Virginia United States v. Virginia, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute's long-standing male-only admission policy in a 7-1 decision...		separate but equal Separate but equal Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group's public facilities was to... gender discrimination
Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette In Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 , the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.-Facts:While driving on a stretch of...		informing motorists that a traffic stop has ended and the motorist is "free to go" is not required under the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, , held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters...		diversity of citizenship must exist at the time of entry of judgment
M.L.B. v. S.L.J. M.L.B. v. S.L.J. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., , was a court case brought to the United States Supreme Court regarding a controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment. The Petitioner M.L.B. argued that the Mississippi Chancery Courts could not terminate her parental rights on the basis that she was unable to pay the court fees. ...		states must provide transcripts to poor litigants wishing to appeal adverse parental termination decisions
Old Chief v. United States Old Chief v. United States Old Chief v. United States, , discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,...		admitting evidence of prior convictions and the danger of "unfair prejudice" under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence The is a code of evidence law governing the admission of facts by which parties in the United States federal court system may prove their cases, both civil and criminal. The Rules were enacted in 1975, with subsequent amendments....
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled in an 8-1 decision that speech-free "buffer zones" around abortion clinics were constitutional...		protesters at abortion clinics
Auer v. Robbins Auer v. Robbins Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 , is a United States Supreme Court case that deals with overtime pay. The question before the court was “Must sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department be paid for working overtime according to relevant provisions found in the Fair Labor Standards...		FLSA and overtime pay of police officers
Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 , was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, affirming the continued vitality of the doctrine of equivalents while making some important refinements to the doctrine.-Facts:The plaintiff Hilton Davis...		patent law, doctrine of equivalents Doctrine of equivalents The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed...
Clinton v. Jones Clinton v. Jones Clinton v. Jones, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office....		Executive privilege Executive privilege In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government... and immunity
Agostini v. Felton Agostini v. Felton Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v...		reexamination of Establishment Clause jurisprudence as it applies schools
Kansas v. Hendricks Kansas v. Hendricks Kansas v. Hendricks is a case in which U.S. Supreme Court set forth procedures for the indefinite civil commitment of prisoners convicted of a sex offense whom the state deems dangerous due to a mental abnormality.-Fact of case:...		procedures for involuntary indefinite civil commitment of dangerous persons
City of Boerne v. Flores City of Boerne v. Flores City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 , was a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment...		scope of Congressional enforcement power under § 5 of the 14th Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
Washington v. Glucksberg Washington v. Glucksberg Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.-Facts:Dr...		constitutionality of state law forbidding assisted suicide Assisted suicide Assisted suicide is the common term for actions by which an individual helps another person voluntarily bring about his or her own death. "Assistance" may mean providing one with the means to end one's own life, but may extend to other actions. It differs to euthanasia where another person ends...
Vacco v. Quill Vacco v. Quill Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great...		right to die Right to die The right to die is the ethical or institutional entitlement of the individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness should be allowed to commit suicide or assisted suicide or to decline... and assisted suicide Assisted suicide Assisted suicide is the common term for actions by which an individual helps another person voluntarily bring about his or her own death. "Assistance" may mean providing one with the means to end one's own life, but may extend to other actions. It differs to euthanasia where another person ends...
Raines v. Byrd		line item veto, legal standing; redirects to Clinton v. City of New York Clinton v. City of New York Clinton v. City of New York, , is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United...
Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States		background checks before purchasing handguns
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, , is a United States Supreme Court case, in which all nine Justices of the Court voted to strike down anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act , finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. Two Justices...		free speech, obscenity Obscenity An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious... , CDA Communications Decency Act The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.The Act was...
State Oil Co. v. Khan State Oil Co. v. Khan State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which “does not hold that all vertical maximum price fixing is per se lawful, but simply that it should be evaluated under the rule of reason, which can effectively identify those situations in which it amounts...		rule of reason Rule of reason The Rule of Reason is a doctrine developed by the United States Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The rule, stated and applied in the case of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S... applied to vertical maximum price fixing Price fixing Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand... , overturned Albrecht v. Herald Co. Albrecht v. Herald Co. Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that wholesalers could not require franchisees and retailers of their products to sell items at a certain price; advertisements regarding sales therefore always included the language "Available at...
Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The local tribal council in Venetie, Alaska, wanted to collect tax from non-tribal members doing business on tribal lands. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on appeal...		native rights over tribal lands
NCUA v. First National Bank & Trust NCUA v. First National Bank & Trust NCUA v. First National Bank & Trust, , is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that banks had prudential standing to challenge regulations that permitted credit unions to enroll unaffilated members.-Background:...		intent of Congress w.r.t. the Federal Credit Union Act Federal Credit Union Act The Federal Credit Union Act is an Act of Congress enacted in 1934. The purpose of the law was to make credit available and promote thrift through a national system of nonprofit, cooperative credit unions... of 1934
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 , unanimously held that a district court conducting pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 has no authority to invoke 28 U.S.C...		pretrial procedures in multi-district litigation
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his...		applicability of sexual harassment Sexual harassment Sexual harassment, is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. In some contexts or circumstances, sexual harassment is illegal. It includes a range of behavior from seemingly mild transgressions and... laws to same sex Homosexuality Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same... harassment
Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc.		application of first-sale doctrine First-sale doctrine The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976,... of U.S. copyright law to reimported goods
Almendarez-Torres v. United States Almendarez-Torres v. United States Almendarez-Torres v. United States, , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which confirmed that a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction was not subject to the Sixth Amendment requirement that a jury determine the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.-Facts:In September 1995,...		prior convictions used to enhance a sentence need not be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, deciding, where there is to be an award of statutory damages in a copyright infringement case, if there is a right to demand a jury trial.C...		Seventh Amendment Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. However, in some civil cases, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the right to a jury trial to the states in the fashion which... right to jury trial in a copyright infringement Copyright infringement Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.- "Piracy" :... case
Breard v. Greene Breard v. Greene Breard v. Greene, , is a United States Supreme Court decision decided on April 14, 1998 which placed the United States directly in conflict with the International Court of Justice and has since been used as precedent.-Background:...		criminal defendant could not raise a defense under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Vienna Convention on Consular Relations The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between independent countries... on federal habeas corpus review
Miller v. Albright		citizenship of a child born outside the United States to a citizen father and an alien mother
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that did not apply to a petition that raises only a competency to be executed claim and that respondent did not, therefore, need authorization to file his petition in the District Court.-See...		proper timing of a claim under Ford v. Wainwright Ford v. Wainwright Ford v. Wainwright, ', was the case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be... , regarding competency to be executed, in federal habeas Habeas corpus is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations... proceedings
Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Indian Nation were entitled to sovereign immunity from contract lawsuits, whether made on or off reservation, or involving governmental or commercial...		an Indian tribe is entitled to sovereign immunity to contract lawsuits, whether made on or off the reservation
County of Sacramento v. Lewis County of Sacramento v. Lewis Sacramento v. Lewis, , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving police action in a high-speed car chase.-Background:...		liability of police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux... for causing death during high-speed chases
Federal Election Commission v. Akins Federal Election Commission v. Akins Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 , was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S...		standing Standing (law) In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case... conferred by statute Statute A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
United States v. Bajakajian United States v. Bajakajian United States v. Bajakajian, , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment...		excessive fines
Swidler & Berlin v. United States Swidler & Berlin v. United States Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the death of an attorney's client does not terminate the attorney-client privilege with respect to records of confidential communications between the attorney and the client that...		death of an attorney's client does not terminate the attorney-client privilege Attorney-client privilege Attorney–client privilege is a legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential....
Clinton v. City of New York Clinton v. City of New York Clinton v. City of New York, , is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United...		constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Line Item Veto Act of 1996 The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 enacted a line-item veto for the Federal government of the United States, but its effect was brief due to judicial review....
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is...		Substantive Due Process, Economic Liberties
National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley In National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, as amended in 1990), which required the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts to ensure that "artistic excellence...		1st amendment, government funding
Bragdon v. Abbott Bragdon v. Abbott Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that reproduction does qualify as a major life activity according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 .- Facts :...		application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to an asymptomatic HIV HIV Human immunodeficiency virus is a lentivirus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome , a condition in humans in which progressive failure of the immune system allows life-threatening opportunistic infections and cancers to thrive... patient
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc. Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc. Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc., 525 U.S. 33 was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the validity of a union shop contract.-Issue:...		union shop contracts
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.-Background of the case:...		on-sale bar On-sale bar The on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102 is a United States patent law term that means if an invention has been for sale for over one year, it is no longer patentable.-35 U.S.C... of United States patent law United States patent law United States patent law was established "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" as provided by the United States Constitution. Congress implemented these...
Knowles v. Iowa Knowles v. Iowa Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from further searching a vehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written a citation for the offense.-Case:Patrick...		search subsequent to a traffic citation without consent
Department of Commerce et al. v. United States House of Representatives et al.		Census figures adjusted for undercount based on sampling Sampling (statistics) In statistics and survey methodology, sampling is concerned with the selection of a subset of individuals from within a population to estimate characteristics of the whole population.... may not be used for Congressional apportionment
Holloway v. United States Holloway v. United States Holloway v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court addressed the issue of whether the federal carjacking law applies to crimes committed with the "conditional intent" of harming drivers who refuse a carjacker's demands....		federal carjacking Carjacking Carjacking is a form of hijacking, where the crime is of stealing a motor vehicle and so also armed assault when the vehicle is occupied. Historically, such as in the rash of semi-trailer truck hijackings during the 1960s, the general term hijacking was used for that type of vehicle abduction,... statute applies to carjacking crimes committed by defendants with the "conditional intent" of harming drivers who resist the highjacker.
Federal Republic of Germany v. United States		application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Vienna Convention on Consular Relations The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between independent countries... to death penalty cases
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, , is a United States Supreme Court case that applied the Daubert standard to expert testimony from non-scientists.-Facts of the case:...		non-scientists as expert witnesses in federal trials
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 , was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the usufructuary rights of the Chippewa tribe to certain lands it had ceded to the federal government in 1837...		usufruct Usufruct Usufruct is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that either belongs to another person or which is under common ownership, as long as the property is not damaged or destroyed... uary rights of Native Americans Native Americans in the United States Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as... on certain lands
Jones v. United States		subsections of federal carjacking Carjacking Carjacking is a form of hijacking, where the crime is of stealing a motor vehicle and so also armed assault when the vehicle is occupied. Historically, such as in the rash of semi-trailer truck hijackings during the 1960s, the general term hijacking was used for that type of vehicle abduction,... statute define separate crimes subject to Sixth Amendment Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions... jury trial requirement
Wyoming v. Houghton Wyoming v. Houghton Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but...		warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause Probable cause In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the... is not justified under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 , examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca,...		application of Chevron Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers... deference standard to Board of Immigration Appeals Board of Immigration Appeals The Board of Immigration Appeals is the part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that reviews the decisions of the Immigration Courts and some decisions of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It is an administrative appellate body that is part of the United States Department... actions
Saenz v. Roe Saenz v. Roe Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another.-Background:...		welfare benefits to new state citizens and the right to travel
Hunt v. Cromartie Hunt v. Cromartie Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the contentious 12th district of North Carolina. In an earlier case, Shaw v. Reno, 517 U.S...		gerrymandering Gerrymandering In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts...
Chicago v. Morales		loitering Loitering Loitering is the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time. Under certain circumstances, it is illegal in various jurisdictions.-Prohibition and history:Loitering may be prohibited by local governments in several countries... as gang activity
Olmstead v. L.C.		undue institutionalization of mental patients violates Americans With Disabilities Act
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity....		sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.... of the States
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity....		sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.... of the States
Alden v. Maine Alden v. Maine Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States about whether the United States Congress may use its Article One powers to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity from suits in its own courts, thereby allowing citizens to sue a state without the state's...

2000–2004

Case name	Citation	Summary
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment where the...		Congress's United States Congress The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.... enforcement powers Congressional power of enforcement A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI... under the Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v... do not extend to the abrogation Abrogation doctrine The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented .... of state sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.... under the Eleventh Amendment Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v... where the discrimination is rationally based on age
Illinois v. Wardlow Illinois v. Wardlow Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 , is a case decided before the United States Supreme Court involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures.- Facts :...		reasonable suspicion Reasonable suspicion Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";... for a Terry stop Terry stop In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person bypoliceon reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S...
Reno v. Condon Reno v. Condon Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 against a Tenth Amendment challenge.-Facts and procedural history:...		upholding the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 against a Tenth Amendment Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791... challenge
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. Friends of the Earth, Inc. et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 , was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness....		standing Standing (law) In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case... , mootness Mootness In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law... , "voluntary cessation"
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that their earlier decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S...		campaign contributions to state political parties
Rice v. Cayetano Rice v. Cayetano Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 , was a case filed in 1996 by Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice against the state of Hawaii and argued before the United States Supreme Court...		race-based voting restrictions for state government offices
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., is an important case in the development of American administrative law.-Legal principle:The scope of authority held by an agency is determined by the agency's organic statute...		administrative agency power over an area heavily regulated by Congress
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth		compulsory student fees to support political campus groups; 1st Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Christensen v. Harris County Christensen v. Harris County Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a county's policy of requiring that employees schedule time off so that they do not accrue time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.Harris County Sheriff's department, in an...		county's policy of requiring that employees schedule time off so that they do not accrue time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act Fair Labor Standards Act The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is a federal statute of the United States. The FLSA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed 'time-and-a-half' for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor," a term that is defined in the statute...
United States v. Morrison United States v. Morrison United States v. Morrison, is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.-...		limits of Congress's power under the commerce clause Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Communications Decency Act which required that cable television operators who offered channels "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" must...		scrambling of adult material on cable channels; 1st Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
United States v. Hubbell United States v. Hubbell United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 , was United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him...		criminal charges based on subpeonaed documents
Troxel v. Granville Troxel v. Granville Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to rear their children, struck down a Washington state law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental...		fundamental rights of parents to raise their children, third-party visitation rights
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe		prayer in public schools
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States used the preemption doctrine to strike down the Massachusetts Burma Law, a law that effectively prohibited Massachusetts' governmental agencies from buying goods and services from...		federal preemption Federal preemption Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,... of state foreign trade regulation
Dickerson v. United States Dickerson v. United States Dickerson v. United States, , upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects, and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona....		legislative abrogation of Miranda Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant... right
Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi v. New Jersey , , was a United States Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts...		Juries must decide all elements of a crime beyond reasonable doubt
California Democratic Party v. Jones California Democratic Party v. Jones California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.-Prior history:...		freedom of association and political primary elections
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale Boy Scouts of America v. Dale Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, , was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the New Jersey Supreme Court's application of the New Jersey public accommodations law, which had forced the Boy Scouts of America to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale...		right of free association, homosexuality Homosexuality Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same...
Stenberg v. Carhart Stenberg v. Carhart Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 , is a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a Nebraska law which made performing partial-birth abortion illegal, except where necessary to save the life of the mother. Nebraska physicians who performed the procedure contrary to the law...		"late term" or "partial birth" abortions
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond City of Indianapolis v. Edmond City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches, specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. Previous Supreme Court decisions had given the police power to...		use of dogs at random traffic stops
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that public policy considerations do not require courts to refuse to enforce an arbitration award ordering an employer to reinstate an employee truck driver who twice tested...		public policy considerations do not require courts to refuse to enforce an arbitration award Arbitration award An arbitration award is a determination on the merits by an arbitration tribunal in an arbitration, and is analogous to a judgment in a court of law... ordering an employer to reinstate an employee truck driver who twice tested positive for marijuana
Bush v. Gore Bush v. Gore Bush v. Gore, , is the landmark United States Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000, that effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v...		vote recounts in presidential election, the only court decision to determine the winner of a presidential election
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n		expansion of state action to include "public entwinement"
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 , was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution...		Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and Equal Protection in a disability case
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standard for regulating ozone and particulate matter was challenged by the American Trucking Association along with...		determining the scope of the EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress... 's power to set air quality standards
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.		res judicata Res judicata Res judicata or res iudicata , also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine... effect of federal judgments in state court
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 , was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of trademark law, holding that a functional design could not be trademarked, and that a patented design was presumed to be functional.-Background:The plaintiff, Marketing Display,...		trademark Trademark A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or... protection for patent Patent A patent is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention.... ed designs
Ferguson v. City of Charleston Ferguson v. City of Charleston Ferguson v. City of Charleston, , is a United States Supreme Court decision that found Medical University of South Carolina's policy regarding involuntary drug testing of pregnant women to violate the Fourth Amendment.-Facts:...		private hospitals that test pregnant women for drugs without their consent and then turn the results over to the police violate the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 , is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on federalism, specifically with regards to the preemption powers of federal law over state laws. It sets the precedent that any state statutes having a "connection with" ERISA plans are superseded by...		preemption Federal preemption Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,... of state law by ERISA Employee Retirement Income Security Act The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is an American federal statute that establishes minimum standards for pension plans in private industry and provides for extensive rules on the federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans...
Texas v. Cobb Texas v. Cobb Texas v. Cobb, , is an important 2001 Supreme Court criminal procedure decision which held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and does not always extend to offenses that are closely related to those where the right has been attached. This decision reaffirmed the Court's...		Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to offenses that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged
Easley v. Cromartie Easley v. Cromartie Easley v. Cromartie, 532 US 234 was a U.S. Supreme Court case. The court's ruling on April 18, 2001 stated that redistricting for political reasons did not violate Federal Civil Rights Law banning race-based gerrymandering. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 US 234 (2001) was a U.S. Supreme Court case. ...		racial discrimination, gerrymandering Gerrymandering In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts...
Alexander v. Sandoval Alexander v. Sandoval Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact.-Background:In 1990 Alabama...		no private right of action for disparate impact under Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation...
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista Atwater v. City of Lago Vista Atwater v. Lago Vista, , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt...		-
C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tribe waived its sovereign immunity when it agreed to a contract containing an arbitration agreement.-Background:In 1993, the Citizen...		Tribal sovereign immunity, waiver by contract to arbitration
Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. Cooper Industries v. Simmons, was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which decided the standard of review that Federal Appeal Courts should use when examining punitive damages awards. The case was decided on May 14, 2001, by a vote of 8-1....		The correct standard of review Standard of review In LAW, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower... to use on appeals for excessive punitive damages Punitive damages Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit...
Rogers v. Tennessee Rogers v. Tennessee Rogers v. Tennessee, , was a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that the Tennessee Supreme Court's abolition of the common-law year and a day rule could apply retroactively to crimes committed before the court abolished the rule under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution...		due process Due process Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it... , "year and a day rule Year and a day rule The year and a day rule has been a common traditional length of time for establishing differences in legal status. The phrase "year and a day rule" is most commonly associated with the former common law standard that death could not be legally attributed to acts or omissions that occurred more... " in murder Murder Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide... cases
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 , the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as...		necessity defense under the Controlled Substances Act Controlled Substances Act The Controlled Substances Act was enacted into law by the Congress of the United States as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The CSA is the federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain... for medical use of marijuana
Bartnicki v. Vopper Bartnicki v. Vopper Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 , is a United States Supreme Court case relieving a media defendant of liability for broadcasting a taped conversation of a labor official talking to other union people about a teachers' strike...		First Amendment and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Electronic Communications Privacy Act The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a United States law.- Overview :The “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or...
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which disabled golfer Casey Martin asserted that the PGA Tour could not lawfully deny him the option to ride in a golf cart between shots. Prior to this case, the PGA Tour required all golfers to walk between shots,...		the Americans with Disabilities Act allows reasonable accommodations of handicaps in professional golf
Kyllo v. United States Kyllo v. United States Kyllo v. United States, , held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant...		defining 'search' under the 4th Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... with respect to heat sensors
Good News Club v. Milford Central School Good News Club v. Milford Central School Good News Club v. Milford Central School, , held that when a government operates a "limited public forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical...		free speech, establishment clause
Saucier v. Katz Saucier v. Katz Saucier v. Katz, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.-Background:...		qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action
United States v. Mead Corp. United States v. Mead Corp. United States v. Mead Corp., , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court, which revolved around the issue of when and where the Chevron Doctrine could be applied.-Background:...		Court declines to extend Chevron doctrine Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers... to U.S. Customs Service United States Customs Service Until March 2003, the United States Customs Service was an agency of the U.S. federal government that collected import tariffs and performed other selected border security duties.Before it was rolled into form part of the U.S... decisions
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus relief for deportable aliens.- Facts :...		The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and their effect on habeas corpus Habeas corpus is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations... petitions
New York Times Co. v. Tasini New York Times Co. v. Tasini New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 , is a leading decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of copyright in the contents of a newspaper database...		copyright in databases
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island Palazzolo v. Rhode Island Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated regulatory taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation...		Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... takings clause
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko		civil rights lawsuits against privately run prisons
Chickasaw Nation v. United States Chickasaw Nation v. United States Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indian tribes were liable for taxes on gambling operations under .-Background:...		Indian tribes are liable for Federal taxes on gambling revenue
United States v. Knights		warrantless searches of probationers
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams		meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a law that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009....
Kansas v. Crane Kansas v. Crane Kansas v. Crane, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act as consistent with substantive due process. The Court clarified that its earlier holding in Kansas v...		as-applied challenge to Kansas' involuntary indefinite civil commitment of dangerous persons, different result from Kansas v. Hendricks Kansas v. Hendricks Kansas v. Hendricks is a case in which U.S. Supreme Court set forth procedures for the indefinite civil commitment of prisoners convicted of a sex offense whom the state deems dangerous due to a mental abnormality.-Fact of case:...
Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo		peer grading does not violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, , struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech." The case was brought against the Government by the Free Speech Coalition, a "California...		First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... protection for simulated child pornography
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 , is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments....		substantive due process, takings clause
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books		zoning of adult bookstores
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 , was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States...		prosecution history estoppel Prosecution history estoppel Prosecution history estoppel, also known as file-wrapper estoppel, is a term used in United States patent law to indicate that a person who has filed a patent application, and then makes narrowing amendments to the application to accommodate the patent law, may be precluded from invoking the...
McKune v. Lile		mandatory treatment for imprisoned sex offenders does not violate the Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... privilege against self-incrimination
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violate the...		door-to-door religious advocacy and the First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Gonzaga University v. Doe Gonzaga University v. Doe Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the federal government from funding educational institutions that release education records to unauthorized persons,...		Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 is a United States federal law.It allows students with access to their education records, an opportunity to seek to have the records amended, and some control over the disclosure of information from the records... does not create a right which is enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux...
Atkins v. Virginia Atkins v. Virginia Atkins v. Virginia, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing the mentally retarded violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.-The case:...		imposing the death penalty Capital punishment in the United States Capital punishment in the United States, in practice, applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder. Capital punishment was a penalty at common law, for many felonies, and was enforced in all of the American colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence... on the mentally retarded; overruling Penry v. Lynaugh Penry v. Lynaugh Penry v. Lynaugh, , sanctioned the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders because the Court determined executing the mentally retarded was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment...
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act did not preempt an Illinois medical-review statute....		no preemption of Illinois Illinois Illinois is the fifth-most populous state of the United States of America, and is often noted for being a microcosm of the entire country. With Chicago in the northeast, small industrial cities and great agricultural productivity in central and northern Illinois, and natural resources like coal,... insurance statute under ERISA
Utah v. Evans Utah v. Evans Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of certain statistical techniques in the census....		use of statistical sampling in the decennial census
Harris v. United States		Sixth Amendment Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions... does not require a jury determination of facts necessary to support the minimum punishment for using or carrying a firearm during or in relation to a drug crime or a crime of violence under
Ring v. Arizona Ring v. Arizona Ring v. Arizona, , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, , to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Ring overruled a portion of...		Sixth Amendment Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions... requires that aggravating factors necessary for eligibility for a death sentence must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt Reasonable doubt Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems . Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard... ; overruling Walton v. Arizona Walton v. Arizona Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 , upheld two important aspects of the capital sentencing scheme in the U.S. state of Arizona — judicial sentencing and the aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" — as not unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has overruled the first of... in part
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which tested the allowance of school vouchers in relation to the establishment clause of the First Amendment....		constitutionality of school voucher program
Hope v. Pelzer Hope v. Pelzer In Hope v. Pelzer, , the United States Supreme Court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity, under which government actors may not be sued for actions they take in connection with their offices, did not apply to a suit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching...		use of the hitching post in prisons is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual...
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White Republican Party of Minnesota v. White Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 , is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office...		election of state judges, freedom of speech
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls		constitutionality of drug testing of high school students who participate in competitive interscholastic activities
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania		the Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid seeking the death penalty after an acquittal on first-degree murder charges
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 , was a Supreme Court of the United States case.* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 537*List of United States Supreme Court cases...		Social Security Social Security (United States) In the United States, Social Security refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program.The original Social Security Act and the current version of the Act, as amended encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs... benefit assignment for coal industry workers
Eldred v. Ashcroft Eldred v. Ashcroft Eldred v. Ashcroft, was a court case in the United States challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act...		extending the duration of the term of copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... under U.S. law
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women		applying RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization... to activities of abortion clinic protesters
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.		claims of trademark dilution Trademark dilution Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with,... require proof of actual dilution
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that when the federal government used land or property held in trust for an Indian tribe, it had the duty to maintain that land or property and was liable for any damages for...		the Federal government has a duty to maintain land held in trust for an Indian tribe
United States v. Navajo Nation United States v. Navajo Nation United States v. Navajo Nation is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Navajo Nation initiated proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that when they sought the assistance of the United States Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate their original leasing agreement with the...		compensation for modification a lease of mining rights to land on an Indian reservation
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 , was a case before the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Connecticut sex offender registration requirement which required public disclosure of information on sex offenders after they had been released from...		holding that Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States. It is bordered by Rhode Island to the east, Massachusetts to the north, and the state of New York to the west and the south .Connecticut is named for the Connecticut River, the major U.S. river that approximately... 's sex offender registration statute did not violate due process clause
Ewing v. California Ewing v. California Ewing v. California, , is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, , the Court could not agree on...		California's Three strikes law Three strikes law Three strikes laws)"are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became... is not cruel and unusual punishment
Lockyer v. Andrade Lockyer v. Andrade Lockyer v. Andrade, , decided the same day as Ewing v. California, held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual...		California's Three strikes law Three strikes law Three strikes laws)"are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became... is not cruel and unusual punishment
Smith v. Doe Smith v. Doe Smith v. Doe, , was a court case in the United States which questioned the constitutionality of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's retroactive requirements. Under the Act, any sex offender must register with the Department of Corrections or local law enforcement within one business day of...		retroactive application of sex offender registration Sex offender registration Sex offender registration is a system in various states designed to allow government authorities to keep track of the residence and activities of sex offenders, including those who have completed their criminal sentences. In some jurisdictions , information in the registry is made available to the... program is not an ex post facto law
Virginia v. Black Virginia v. Black Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 , was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it...		constitutionality of laws forbidding cross burning for purposes of intimidation
State Farm v. Campbell		due process limits on punitive damages
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth...		Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is a United States federal law requiring covered employers to provide employees job-protected unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons. These reasons include personal or family illness, military service, family military leave, pregnancy,... validly abrogated Abrogation doctrine The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented .... state sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution....
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 , was a copyright and trademark case of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the applicability of the Lanham Act to a work in the public domain.-Background:...		"reverse passing off Passing off Passing off is a common law tort which can be used to enforce unregistered trademark rights. The tort of passing off protects the goodwill of a trader from a misrepresentation that causes damage to goodwill.... " and rights to public domain Public domain Works are in the public domain if the intellectual property rights have expired, if the intellectual property rights are forfeited, or if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all... works
Sell v. United States Sell v. United States Sell v. United States, is a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the...		Forced psychiatric medication Involuntary treatment Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without a person's consent. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatric treatment administered despite an individual's objections... by lower federal courts is permissible under some circumstances
United States v. American Library Association United States v. American Library Association United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 , was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of...		Congressional requirement that libraries Library In a traditional sense, a library is a large collection of books, and can refer to the place in which the collection is housed. Today, the term can refer to any collection, including digital sources, resources, and services... install web-filtering software Content-control software Content-control software, also known as censorware or web filtering software, is a term for software designed and optimized for controlling what content is permitted to a reader, especially when it is used to restrict material delivered over the Web... held not to violate First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Gratz v. Bollinger Gratz v. Bollinger Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy...		racial discrimination, affirmative action Affirmative action Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.-Origins:The term... , equal protection
Grutter v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School...		racial discrimination, affirmative action Affirmative action Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.-Origins:The term... , equal protection
American Insurance Association v. Garamendi American Insurance Association v. Garamendi American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a California law that required any insurance company wishing to do business in the state to publish information regarding insurance policies held by persons in Europe...		California California California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area... state insurance statute struck down for interfering with Presidential foreign policy
Wiggins v. Smith Wiggins v. Smith Wiggins v. Smith, is a case in which the United States Supreme Court spelled out standards for "effectiveness" in the constitutional right to legal counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment...		ineffective assistance of counsel Ineffective assistance of counsel Ineffective assistance of counsel is an issue raised in legal malpractice suits and in appeals in criminal cases where a criminal defendant asserts that their criminal conviction occurred because their attorney failed to properly defend the case... at sentencing Sentence (law) In law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime...
Lawrence v. Texas Lawrence v. Texas Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by proxy, invalidated sodomy laws in the thirteen other states where they remained in existence, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal in...		finding laws restricting sodomy Sodomy Sodomy is an anal or other copulation-like act, especially between male persons or between a man and animal, and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite"... between consenting adults unconstitutional; overruling Bowers v. Hardwick Bowers v. Hardwick Bowers v. Hardwick, , is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a 5-4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals. Seventeen years after Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court...
McConnell v. FEC		First Amendment; political speech
Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, often shortened to Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of Antitrust law...		the Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by... and requirements of telecommunications companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Telecommunications Act of 1996 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. This Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, was a major stepping stone towards the future of telecommunications, since this was the...
Illinois v. Lidster Illinois v. Lidster Illinois v. Lidster, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use a roadblock to investigate a traffic accident.-Facts:...		accident investigation checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
Fellers v. United States Fellers v. United States Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 , is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.-Facts:...		once judicial proceedings have been initiated against a defendant, police officers cannot elicit information from the defendant without the defendant's counsel present
Doe v. Chao Doe v. Chao Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the statutory damages provision of the Privacy Act of 1974....		governmental violation of privacy rights
Locke v. Davey Locke v. Davey Locke v. Davey, , is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in theology." This case examined the "room....		a religion clauses case upholding a Washington state scholarship program which excluded funding devotional studies.
Crawford v. Washington Crawford v. Washington Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment...		prior testimony exception to hearsay Hearsay in United States law Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone. In general the witness will make a statement such as, "Sally told me Tom was in town," as opposed to "I saw Tom in... in criminal trials, Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses; abrogating Ohio v. Roberts Ohio v. Roberts Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.- Factual background :...
National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish		availability of death-scene images under the Freedom of Information Act over the objection of family members; investigation into the suicide of Vince Foster Vince Foster Vincent Walker Foster, Jr. was a Deputy White House Counsel during the first few months of President Bill Clinton's administration, and also a law partner and friend of Hillary Rodham Clinton...
United States v. Flores-Montano United States v. Flores-Montano In United States v. Flores-Montano, , the United States Supreme Court held that customs agents may remove the gas tank from a vehicle crossing the international border in an effort to look for contraband.-Facts:...		reasonableness of removing a gas tank from a vehicle crossing the border under the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
Vieth v. Jubelirer Vieth v. Jubelirer Vieth v. Jubelirer, , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The ruling was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering...		justiciability Justiciability Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual... of suit to enjoin gerrymandering Gerrymandering In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts...
Tennessee v. Lane Tennessee v. Lane Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 , was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment....		Congress's power under the 14th amendment, section 5; Americans With Disabilities Act
Nelson v. Campbell		challenging lethal injection Lethal injection Lethal injection is the practice of injecting a person with a fatal dose of drugs for the express purpose of causing the immediate death of the subject. The main application for this procedure is capital punishment, but the term may also be applied in a broad sense to euthanasia and suicide... protocols under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux...
Republic of Austria v. Altmann Republic of Austria v. Altmann Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively...		retroactive application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391, 1441, and 1602-1611 of the United States Code, that establishes the limitations as to whether a foreign sovereign nation may be sued in U.S. courts—federal or state...
Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739 , is a case that was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on 19 April 2004...		an ambiguity in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act Employee Retirement Income Security Act The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is an American federal statute that establishes minimum standards for pension plans in private industry and provides for extensive rules on the federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans...
Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 , is a case argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on 21 April 2004. The question the case presented relates to Presidential foreign affairs and foreign trade Actions exempt from environmental-review requirements under the...		Presidential foreign affairs and foreign trade actions
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., 542 U.S. 1 , was a lawsuit originally filed in 2000 which led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of...		validity of “under God” in Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of loyalty to the federal flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942... ; standing to bring suit on another’s behalf
United States v. Dominguez Benitez United States v. Dominguez Benitez In United States v. Dominguez Benitez, , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the...		appellate review standard for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the procedural rules that govern how federal criminal prosecutions are conducted in United States district courts, the general trial courts of the U.S. government. As such, they are the companion to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... governing the taking of guilty pleas
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, , held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the rubric of Terry v...		constitutionality of state law requiring citizens to identify themselves to police
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 United States Supreme Court case that limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act....		ERISA's effect on federal jurisdiction of cases involving utilization review
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving , which authorizes United States district courts to enforce discovery requests made in connection with litigation being conducted in foreign tribunals...		foreign tribunals
Blakely v. Washington Blakely v. Washington Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant...		jury must find all elements of a criminal sentence beyond a reasonable doubt Reasonable doubt Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems . Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard...
Schriro v. Summerlin Schriro v. Summerlin Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a requirement that a different Supreme Court decision requiring the jury rather than the judge to find aggravating factors would not be applied retroactively.-Facts:In April 1981, Warren Wesley...		retroactively applying the rule set in Ring v. Arizona Ring v. Arizona Ring v. Arizona, , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, , to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Ring overruled a portion of... that a jury must find the aggravating factors in a capital murder case
Rumsfeld v. Padilla Rumsfeld v. Padilla Rumsfeld v. Padilla, , was a United States Supreme Court case, in which José Padilla sought habeas corpus relief against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as a result of his detainment as an "unlawful combatant."...		detention of American citizens
Rasul v. Bush Rasul v. Bush Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned...		jurisdiction over foreign nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay Guantanamo Bay detainment camp The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a detainment and interrogation facility of the United States located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The facility was established in 2002 by the Bush Administration to hold detainees from the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq...
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy...		detention of American citizens
Missouri v. Seibert Missouri v. Seibert Missouri v. Seibert, , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession...		Missouri Missouri Missouri is a US state located in the Midwestern United States, bordered by Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska. With a 2010 population of 5,988,927, Missouri is the 18th most populous state in the nation and the fifth most populous in the Midwest. It... 's practice of interrogating suspects without reading them a Miranda warning Miranda warning The Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. In Miranda v... , then reading them the warning and asking them to repeat their confession is unconstitutional
Leocal v. Ashcroft Leocal v. Ashcroft Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 , held that aliens may not be deported after being convicted of DUI if the DUI statute that defines the offense does not contain a mens rea element or otherwise allows a conviction for merely negligent conduct....		DUI Drunk driving (United States) Drunk driving is the act of operating and/or driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs to the degree that mental and motor skills are impaired... is not a "crime of violence" requiring deportation of an alien
Koons Buick, Inc. v. Nigh Koons Buick, Inc. v. Nigh Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress's 1995 amendment of the Truth in Lending Act left unaltered the prior minimum and maximum limits of $100 and $1000 prescribed for statutory damages awarded to plaintiffs in TILA...		Truth in Lending Act Truth in Lending Act The Truth in Lending Act of 1968 is United States federal law designed to promote the informed use of consumer credit, by requiring disclosures about its terms and cost to standardize the manner in which costs associated with borrowing are calculated and disclosed... imposes a $1000 limit on statutory damages for violations of the Act involving personal-property loans.
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.

2005–2009

Case name	Citation	Summary
United States v. Booker United States v. Booker United States v. Booker, , was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that, other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be...		applying Blakely v. Washington Blakely v. Washington Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant... to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Federal Sentencing Guidelines The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system...
Clark v. Martinez Clark v. Martinez Clark v. Martinez was a United States Supreme Court case about the detention of inadmissible immigrants during the deportation process. An alien can be found inadmissible on the grounds of poor health, criminal history, substance trafficking, prostitution/human trafficking, money laundering,...		detention of aliens awaiting deportation
Illinois v. Caballes Illinois v. Caballes In Illinois v. Caballes, , the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop does not unreasonably prolong the length of the stop.-Facts:...		4th Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... search and seizure Search and seizure Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have...
Commissioner v. Banks Commissioner v. Banks Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 , together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to...		Whether or not the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes.
Johnson v. California		proper standard for reviewing constitutional race-discrimination claim in sorting prison inmates
Roper v. Simmons Roper v. Simmons Roper v. Simmons, was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the...		imposing the death penalty Capital punishment in the United States Capital punishment in the United States, in practice, applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder. Capital punishment was a penalty at common law, for many felonies, and was enforced in all of the American colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence... on juvenile murderers; overruling Stanford v. Kentucky Stanford v. Kentucky Stanford v. Kentucky, , was a United States Supreme Court case that sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the crime. This decision came one year after Thompson v...
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract with the Federal Government to reimburse the tribe for health care costs was binding, despite the failure of Congress to appropriate funds for those...		a Federal contract with an Indian tribe is binding, even if Congress did not appropriate funds
Tenet v. Doe Tenet v. Doe Tenet v. Doe, 544 U. S. 1 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously that spies cannot sue the CIA or the United States government to enforce an espionage contract...		enforceability of contracts between the government and spies (undercover CIA agents)
Shepard v. United States		proving prior convictions obtained through guilty pleas under Taylor v. United States
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land....		the repurchase of tribal land by an Indian tribe does not restore tribal sovereignty to the land
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and its relation to preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction.-Facts & Procedural Posture:...		state court decisions and the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine Rooker-Feldman doctrine The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462...
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 , was a securities strike suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 2005...		standard for pleading loss causation in a securities fraud claim
Small v. United States Small v. United States Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 , was a criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 2005. The issue of the case was whether , which makes it illegal to possess a gun for individuals previously "convicted in any court" of crimes for which they could have been...		resolution of split appeals court decisions on inclusion of foreign courts in the term "any court"
Granholm v. Heald Granholm v. Heald Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 , was a court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 decision that ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers, but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same, were...		interstate shipment of wine under the Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause The "Dormant" Commerce Clause, also known as the "Negative" Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution...
Deck v. Missouri Deck v. Missouri Deck v. Missouri, , was a 2005 Supreme Court Case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial...		shackling a defendant during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen's conviction of obstruction of justice on the basis that the jury instructions did not properly portray the law Andersen was charged...		legality of document destruction in the face of likely government investigation
Cutter v. Wilkinson Cutter v. Wilkinson Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 31, 2005, which holds that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act , prisoners in facilities that accept federal funds cannot be denied accommodations necessary to engage in...		religious freedom for prison Prison A prison is a place in which people are physically confined and, usually, deprived of a range of personal freedoms. Imprisonment or incarceration is a legal penalty that may be imposed by the state for the commission of a crime... inmates
Tory v. Cochran Tory v. Cochran Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 , is a United States Supreme Court case involving libel. The case began in California with Johnnie Cochran, the famed attorney who represented O.J. Simpson, suing his former client Ulysses Tory for libel and invasion of privacy...		defamation, enjoinment of speech; continuity of injunction after death
Gonzales v. Raich Gonzales v. Raich Gonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal...		legitimacy of using marijuana Cannabis (drug) Cannabis, also known as marijuana among many other names, refers to any number of preparations of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug or for medicinal purposes. The English term marijuana comes from the Mexican Spanish word marihuana... as a medicine, and power of the federal government to regulate intrastate activities
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign cruise ships in American waters...		applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to foreign-held companies
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. Merck v. Integra Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 , is a United States Supreme Court case with ramifications for patent law. The dispute dates to approximately 1996 and centers on a federal law known as the "FDA safe harbor" ....		applicability of patent Patent A patent is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention.... s in preclinical studies
Wilkinson v. Austin Wilkinson v. Austin In Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 , the Supreme Court held that while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives rise to a liberty interest in not being placed in a Supermax prison, Ohio's procedures for determining which prisoners should be placed there satisfied the requirements...		due process requirements for placing prisoners in Supermax Supermax Supermax is the name used to describe "control-unit" prisons, or units within prisons, which represent the most secure levels of custody in the prison systems of certain countries... prisons
Miller-El v. Dretke Miller-El v. Dretke Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the constitutional limitations on the use by prosecutors of peremptory challenges and of the Texas procedure appropriately termed the "jury shuffle."-Factual background:Thomas Miller-El was...		clarification of Batson v. Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race... standard for peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason... s
Kelo v. City of New London Kelo v. City of New London Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development...		eminent domain Eminent domain Eminent domain , compulsory purchase , resumption/compulsory acquisition , or expropriation is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent... ; takings of private property for private development
Van Orden v. Perry Van Orden v. Perry Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.In a...		legality of a Ten Commandments Ten Commandments The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue , are a set of biblical principles relating to ethics and worship, which play a fundamental role in Judaism and most forms of Christianity. They include instructions to worship only God and to keep the Sabbath, and prohibitions against idolatry,... display
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales		liability of police departments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux... for failing to respond to domestic violence calls
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, , is a case which was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue is whether government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.In a suit...		constitutionality of a Ten Commandments Ten Commandments The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue , are a set of biblical principles relating to ethics and worship, which play a fundamental role in Judaism and most forms of Christianity. They include instructions to worship only God and to keep the Sabbath, and prohibitions against idolatry,... display; potential reformulation of the Lemon Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools for the salaries of teachers who... test
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court unanimously held that defendant P2P file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast could be sued for inducing copyright infringement for acts taken in the course of marketing file sharing...		Copyright infringement Copyright infringement Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.- "Piracy" :... in P2P Peer-to-peer file sharing P2P or Peer-to-peer file sharing allows users to download files such as music, movies, and games using a P2P software client that searches for other connected computers. The "peers" are computer systems connected to each other through internet. Thus, the only requirements for a computer to join... file-sharing; re-examination of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
National Cable and Telecomm. Assn v. Brand X Internet Services		>-

The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.