List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court
Encyclopedia
This is a chronological list of cases decided by the United States 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...
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...
John Roberts
John Roberts
John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States. He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist...
(September 29, 2005 to the present).
Decided and reported
The cases in this section have been decided and included in a final bound edition of U.S. ReportsUnited States Reports
The United States Reports are the official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinions of the court in each case, prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are...
. They are listed in order of the date on which they were decided.
| Case name | Citation | Summary |- |
Beginning of active duty of Chief Justice John Roberts John Roberts John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States. He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist... , September 29, 2005 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gonzales v. Oregon Gonzales v. Oregon Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of... |
Attorney General Attorney General In most common law jurisdictions, the attorney general, or attorney-general, is the main legal advisor to the government, and in some jurisdictions he or she may also have executive responsibility for law enforcement or responsibility for public prosecutions.The term is used to refer to any person... did not permissibly construe 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... to prohibit the distribution of drugs DRUGS Destroy Rebuild Until God Shows are an American post-hardcore band formed in 2010. They released their debut self-titled album on February 22, 2011.- Formation :... for physician-assisted suicide |
||||
| Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England | Invalidating statute and lower courts rendering narrower declaratory and injunctive relief | ||||
| Rice v. Collins Rice v. Collins Rice v. Collins 546 U.S. 333 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a young African American woman, Juror 16, from a defendant's drug trial jury in a California court case, based on her youth and on her alleged... |
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 may not be granted on the basis of debatable inferences used to overturn the trial court's finding vis-á-vis 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 |
||||
| Central Virginia Community College v. Katz Central Virginia Community College v. Katz Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 , is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution abrogates state sovereign immunity... |
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 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... and the Bankruptcy Clause 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... |
||||
| Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the Federal Government's seizure of a sacramental tea, containing a Schedule I substance, from a New Mexican branch of the Brazilian church União do Vegetal... |
Federal government could not bar religious use of hallucinogenic tea Tea Tea is an aromatic beverage prepared by adding cured leaves of the Camellia sinensis plant to hot water. The term also refers to the plant itself. After water, tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world... |
||||
| Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna is a 2006 United States Supreme Court decision concerning contract law and arbitration... |
Arbitrator Arbitration Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution , is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons , by whose decision they agree to be bound... must decide legality of contract unless 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... is itself being challenged |
||||
| Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving claims for racial discrimination against the right to make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a key civil rights provision in U.S. law that was originally enacted as part of... |
agent of a party to a contract Contract A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing. Contracts can be made orally. The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" or compensation of money. In equity, the remedy can be specific... cannot state a claim under because he himself does not have rights to make or enforce under the contract |
||||
| Dolan v. United States Postal Service Dolan v. United States Postal Service Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the extent to which the United States Postal Service has sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by private individuals under the Federal Tort Claims Act... |
scope of 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 United States Postal Service United States Postal Service The United States Postal Service is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States... under the Federal Tort Claims Act Federal Tort Claims Act The Federal Tort Claims Act or "FTCA", , is a statute enacted by the United States Congress in 1948. "Federal Tort Claims Act" was also previously the official short title passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress on August 2, 1946 as Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act, 60 Stat... |
||||
| Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation | "Employee-numerosity" requirement of Title VII of the 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... is substantive, rather than jurisdictional Jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility... in nature |
||||
| Oregon v. Guzek Oregon v. Guzek Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not grant criminal defendants facing the death penalty the right to introduce new evidence of their innocence during sentencing that... |
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... may constitutionally limit the evidence of innocence a defendant convicted of a capital offense may present at his sentencing hearing to the evidence already presented at his trial. |
||||
| Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the application of U.S. antitrust law to a joint venture between oil companies to market gasoline to gas stations... |
joint venture Joint venture A joint venture is a business agreement in which parties agree to develop, for a finite time, a new entity and new assets by contributing equity. They exercise control over the enterprise and consequently share revenues, expenses and assets... was not a price-fixing scheme under antitrust Antitrust The United States antitrust law is a body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both,... law |
||||
| Scheidler v. National Organization for Women | physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act Hobbs Act The Hobbs Act, named after Congressman Sam Hobbs and codified at , is a U.S. federal law that prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy... |
||||
| Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. | patented products involved in product tying arrangements are not presumed to have market power under antitrust law | ||||
| Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights | law school Law school A law school is an institution specializing in legal education.- Law degrees :- Canada :... s receiving federal funds may not ban military recruiters Military recruitment Military recruitment is the act of requesting people, usually male adults, to join a military voluntarily. Involuntary military recruitment is known as conscription. Many countries that have abolished conscription use military recruiters to persuade people to join, often at an early age. To... |
||||
| United States v. Grubbs United States v. Grubbs United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution... |
anticipatory search warrant did not violate the particularity clause of 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... |
||||
| Georgia v. Randolph Georgia v. Randolph Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 , is a case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant... |
police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects | ||||
| Day v. McDonough Day v. McDonough Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the one year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996... |
A State's unintentional failure to object to the filing of 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 after the statute of limitations Statute of limitations A statute of limitations is an enactment in a common law legal system that sets the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated... has expired does not prevent a district court from dismissing the petition on its own initiative |
||||
| Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Chatham County | sovereign immunity does not apply to admiralty Admiralty law Admiralty law is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans... suit against county |
||||
| Jones v. Flowers Jones v. Flowers Jones v. Flowers, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the due process requirement that a state give notice to an owner before selling his property to satisfy his unpaid taxes... |
sufficiency of notice Notice Notice is the legal concept in which a party is made aware of a legal process affecting their rights, obligations or duties. There are several types of notice: public notice , actual notice, constructive notice, and implied notice.... for tax Tax To tax is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. Taxes are also imposed by many subnational entities... sale |
||||
| Hartman v. Moore Hartman v. Moore Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials... |
A plaintiff in a retaliatory-prosecution action against federal officials must plead and show the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charges. | ||||
| Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ahlborn Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ahlborn Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the ability of a state agency to claim a personal injury settlement as compensation for Medicaid benefits provided for treatment of the injuries... |
state lien Lien In law, a lien is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation... s on personal injury Personal injury Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. The term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff's injury has been caused by the negligence of another, but also arises in defamation... settlements Settlement (law) In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. The term "settlement" also has other meanings in the context of law.-Basis:... |
||||
| Marshall v. Marshall Marshall v. Marshall Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate courts over tort claims under state common law... |
federal bankruptcy court binding state court on inheritance question | ||||
| Holmes v. South Carolina Holmes v. South Carolina Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime... |
limitations on exclusion of evidence in murder case, 6th 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... |
||||
| DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court... |
taxpayer standing in a 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... case |
||||
| Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U.S. 356 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the ability of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan fiduciary to recover medical costs from a beneficiary who has been reimbursed for injuries by a... |
fiduciary's recovery of personal injury settlement under ERISA | ||||
| eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that... |
nature 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.... injunctions - revisiting Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.- Facts :... |
||||
| S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env. Protection S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env. Protection S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving licensing requirements under the Clean Water Act... |
interpreting scope of activities covered by the Clean Water Act Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Commonly abbreviated as the CWA, the act established the goals of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that... |
||||
| Brigham City v. Stuart Brigham City v. Stuart Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement... |
reasonableness of officers' warrantless entry into a home to stop a fight under the "emergency aid exception" | ||||
| Garcetti v. Ceballos Garcetti v. Ceballos Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the... |
extent of public employees' First Amendment right to free speech in the workplace | ||||
| Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. In Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corporation, the United States Supreme Court relied on Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation and held that to establish standing under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act provision that creates a civil cause of action for any... |
activities subject to 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... |
||||
| Zedner v. United States Zedner v. United States Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 , was a United States Supreme Court case involving the right to a speedy trial. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that a defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy Trial Act... |
a criminal 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... may not prospectively waive his rights under the Speedy Trial Act |
||||
| House v. Bell House v. Bell House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 , was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the permissibility of new DNA forensic evidence that becomes available post-conviction, in capital punishment appeals when those claims have defaulted pursuant to state law. The Court found that admitting new DNA... |
Post-conviction DNA forensic evidence can be considered in death penalty appeals | ||||
| Hill v. McDonough Hill v. McDonough Hill v. McDonough , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States... |
a challenge to 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... as violating 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... properly raised a claim Cause of action In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit... under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is not barred by previous habeas corpus petition |
||||
| Hudson v. Michigan Hudson v. Michigan Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586 , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require... |
evidence obtained with a search warrant is admissible even when police violate 'knock-and-announce' rule | ||||
| Rapanos v. United States Rapanos v. United States Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 , was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice, Samuel... |
whether wetlands are part of the "navigable waters of the United States" and thus regulated by the Clean Water Act | ||||
| Davis v. Washington Davis v. Washington Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that hearsay statements made in a 9-1-1 call asking for aid were not "testimonial" in nature and thus their introduction at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause as defined in Crawford v... |
whether a 911 call is "testimonial" under 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... |
||||
| Samson v. California Samson v. California Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision of the California Court of Appeal; which held that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the... |
evidence obtained in a suspicionless search of parolees is admissible, and not prohibited under the Fourth Amendment | ||||
| Dixon v. United States Dixon v. United States Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the level of proof required to prove certain elements of a crime.-Facts:... |
burden of proof for duress Duress In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner... as a defense to Federal firearms law violations |
||||
| Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 was a United States Supreme Court case about sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination.- Facts :... |
a job reassignment which is dirtier and more strenuous may constitute retaliatory discrimination under the 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... , as may a month of suspension without pay even when the employee receives back pay |
||||
| Woodford v. Ngo Woodford v. Ngo Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 , was a United States Supreme Court case about the procedures determining when prison litigation may be commenced in federal court. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, ruled that prisoners must exhaust all state-court remedies in accordance with the rules... |
the Prison Litigation Reform Act Prison Litigation Reform Act The Prison Litigation Reform Act is a U.S. federal law that was enacted in 1996. Congress enacted PLRA in response to a significant increase in prisoner litigation in the federal courts; the PLRA was designed to help unclog the court system from this litigation.For the preceding 20 – 30 years,... requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies Exhaustion of remedies The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents a litigant from seeking a remedy in a new court or jurisdiction until all claims or remedies have been exhausted in the original one. The doctrine was originally created by case law based on the principles of comity.In the United States, exhaustion... before an inmate can file a lawsuit |
||||
| United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 , is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the erroneous deprivation of a defendant's attorney of choice entitles him to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.-Background:The defendant in the... |
trial court's erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant's choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction | ||||
| Kansas v. Marsh Kansas v. Marsh Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that a Kansas death penalty statute was consistent with the U.S... |
statute allowing the death penalty in cases where the aggravating and mitigating evidence are equal does not violate 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... |
||||
| Randall v. Sorrell Randall v. Sorrell Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a Vermont law which placed a cap on financial donations made to politicians. The court ruled that Vermont's law, the strictest in the nation, unconstitutionally hindered the citizens' First... |
campaign finance laws which limit expenditures violate the First Amendment, and the anticorruption benefits of contribution limits must be weighed against their First Amendment costs | ||||
| Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 , was a United States Supreme Court case about experts' fees in cases commenced under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act . Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, ruled that IDEA does not authorize... |
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Individuals with Disabilities Education Act The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities... does not authorize the award of experts' fees to prevailing plaintiff Plaintiff A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court... s |
||||
| Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which held that a state court did not have to exclude evidence admitted into court in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.- Facts :... |
informing a suspect of his rights 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... |
||||
| League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry | Texas's 2003 redistricting Redistricting Redistricting is the process of drawing United States electoral district boundaries, often in response to population changes determined by the results of the decennial census. In 36 states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, in many cases subject to... of District 23 constituted a violation of Latinos' rights under the Voting Rights Act Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.... of 1965, however mid-decade redistricting is constitutional as long as it is not solely motivated by partisan gain |
||||
| Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military... |
Guantanamo Bay Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is located on of land and water at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba which the United States leased for use as a coaling station following the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903. The base is located on the shore of Guantánamo Bay at the southeastern end of Cuba. It is the oldest overseas... detainees may not be tried by a military commission Military tribunal A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors... under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and said military commission violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice Uniform Code of Military Justice The Uniform Code of Military Justice , is the foundation of military law in the United States. It is was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . .... and the Geneva Conventions Geneva Conventions The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war... , both of which apply to the detainees, in that accused and their counsels may be excluded from their trial and knowing what evidence has been put against them |
||||
| Clark v. Arizona Clark v. Arizona Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by the State of Arizona. The ruling affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia, for the killing of a... |
constitutionality of Arizona Arizona Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix... 's insanity defense statute |
||||
| Lopez v. Gonzales Lopez v. Gonzales Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 , held that an "aggravated felony" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor... |
misdemeanor drug crimes as aggravated felonies Aggravated felony In United States immigration law, the term aggravated felony refers to a broad category of crimes that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings... |
||||
| Carey v. Musladin Carey v. Musladin Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the standard for when a federal court can grant habeas corpus relief to overturn a criminal conviction based on the state court's misapplication of established federal law... |
spectator publicity and the right to a fair trial; "clearly established" law under the AEDPA | ||||
| BP America Production Co. v. Burton BP America Production Co. v. Burton BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84 , was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a statute of limitations on government actions for contract claims applies to actions by a federal administrative agency to recover royalties on federal oil and gas leases... |
Statute of limitations Statute of limitations A statute of limitations is an enactment in a common law legal system that sets the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated... on contract Contract A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing. Contracts can be made orally. The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" or compensation of money. In equity, the remedy can be specific... actions by the Federal Government under is not applicable to administrative proceedings |
||||
| Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving patent law. It arose from a lawsuit filed by MedImmune which challenged one of the Cabilly patents issued to Genentech... |
enforceability of patents before infringement | ||||
| Cunningham v. California Cunningham v. California Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , held that the rule first announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, , applies to California's Determinate Sentencing Law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term. There must exist specific... |
applicability of 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 California's determinate sentencing law |
||||
| Philip Morris USA v. Williams Philip Morris USA v. Williams Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bars punitive damages for harm caused to individuals not involved in the litigation.Mayola Williams, the widow of Jesse D... |
constitutional limitations on 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... |
||||
| Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365 , was a United States Supreme Court case about bad faith in bankruptcy.-Facts:... |
bad-faith exception to the right to convert Chapter 7 Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code Chapter 7 of the Title 11 of the United States Code governs the process of liquidation under the bankruptcy laws of the United States... bankruptcy case to a Chapter 13 Chapter 13, Title 11, United States Code Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, codified under Title 11 of the United States Code, governs a form of bankruptcy in the United States that allows individuals to undergo a financial reorganization supervised by a federal bankruptcy court. The goal of Chapter 13 is to enable... case |
||||
| Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation, 549 U.S. 422 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held a United States district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non conveniens plea, and need not... |
District Court United States district court The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States... may respond immediately to defendant's forum non conveniens Forum non conveniens Forum non conveniens is a common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties... motion before resolving jurisdictional or other threshold concerns |
||||
| Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 , is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide... |
power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions | ||||
| Davenport v. Washington Education Association | A state may require that its public-sector unions receive authorization from nonmembers before spending their agency fees for election-related purposes | ||||
| Gonzales v. Carhart Gonzales v. Carhart Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 , is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of... |
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction... |
||||
| James v. United States James v. United States (2007) James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that attempted burglary could serve as a predicate felony under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act , which provided that a person convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm with... |
attempted burglary as a predicate crime under the Armed Career Criminal Act | ||||
| Scott v. Harris Scott v. Harris Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving a lawsuit against a sheriff's deputy brought by a motorist who was paralyzed after the officer ran his eluding vehicle off the road during a high-speed car chase. The driver contended that this action was an... |
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... seizure in a high speed chase, 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... |
||||
| KSR v. Teleflex KSR v. Teleflex KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.-Case history:... |
Patent law, nonobviousness | ||||
| Microsoft v. AT&T Microsoft v. AT&T Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 , was a United States Supreme Court case that restricts the extraterritorial reach of U.S. patent law. A section of U.S. patent law, , lets the holder of a U.S. patent block the export from the U.S... |
copying software in a foreign country cannot violate U.S. patent law | ||||
| Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 , is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act over race or gender pay discrimination... |
statute of limitations Statute of limitations A statute of limitations is an enactment in a common law legal system that sets the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated... on employment discrimination Employment discrimination Employment discrimination is discrimination in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation. It includes various types of harassment.... claims |
||||
| Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York In Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 , the Supreme Court construed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow a federal court to hear a lawsuit brought by the City of New York to recover unpaid property taxes levied against India and Mongolia, both of which own real... |
whether a municipality can sue other countries to collect unpaid taxes | ||||
| Bowles v. Russell Bowles v. Russell Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 , is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined that the federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals that are filed late, even if the district court said the petitioner had additional time to file.- Early history of... |
Federal Courts of Appeals lack jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals that are filed late, even if the district court said the petitioner had additional time to file | ||||
| Brendlin v. California Brendlin v. California Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.-Facts:... |
whether a passenger Passenger A passenger is a term broadly used to describe any person who travels in a vehicle, but bears little or no responsibility for the tasks required for that vehicle to arrive at its destination.... in an automobile Automobile An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor... is "detained" so that he may assert a 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... violation stemming from the traffic stop itself |
||||
| Credit Suisse v. Billing Credit Suisse v. Billing Credit Suisse v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that Congress' creation of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission implicitly exempted the regulated securities industry from antitrust lawsuits under other existing laws... |
Whether Congress's creation of the SEC United States Securities and Exchange Commission The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is a federal agency which holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other electronic securities markets in the United States... implicitly exempted regulated industries from antitrust Antitrust The United States antitrust law is a body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both,... lawsuits |
||||
| Rita v. United States Rita v. United States Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 , is a U.S. Supreme Court that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker... |
"reasonableness" of a federal prison sentence under 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... ; continuing application of 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... |
||||
| Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights... |
The proper standard for determining whether a plaintiff has alleged a "strong inference" of scienter under the PSLRA Private Securities Litigation Reform Act The United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 implemented several substantive changes affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation, and... |
||||
| Morse v. Frederick | free speech rights of high school students ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus") | ||||
| CBOCS West v. Humphries CBOCS West v. Humphries CBOCS West, Inc., v. Hedrick G. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 , is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the petitioner, Hedrick Humphries was unfairly retaliated against by CBOCS West Inc. for complaining to managers about the dismissal of another Black employee for... |
race retaliation claims 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... |
||||
| Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election.-Background:... |
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold and John McCain... 's restriction on issue ads in election campaigns |
||||
| Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government.... |
taxpayer standing to pursue an Establishment Clause claim against President Bush's George W. Bush George Walker Bush is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States, from 2001 to 2009. Before that, he was the 46th Governor of Texas, having served from 1995 to 2000.... faith-based initiative |
||||
| Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 , decided together with Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, is a decision of the U.S... Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education is a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in December 2006 regarding racial quotas and explicit racial desegregation in public education. The U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion on June 28, 2007, rejecting the use of a student's... (companion case) |
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... ; using race as a tie-breaker in assigning students to public schools |
||||
| Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 , is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the 96-year-old doctrine that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, replacing the older doctrine with the rule of... |
applying 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... under Section 1 of the Sherman 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... |
||||
| Panetti v. Quarterman Panetti v. Quarterman Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row... |
executing the mentally ill | ||||
| Watson v. United States Watson v. United States Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court had earlier held in Smith v... |
whether trading drugs for a gun constitutes use of a firearm under and 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..... |
||||
| Kimbrough v. United States Kimbrough v. United States In Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 , the Supreme Court confirmed that federal district judges have discretion to impose sentences outside the range dictated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in cases involving conduct related to possession, distribution, and manufacture of crack... |
whether the 100:1 ratio between powder and crack cocaine imposed by the 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... yields "reasonable" sentences |
||||
| Gall v. United States Gall v. United States Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable... |
"reasonableness" of a federal prison sentence under 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... ; continuing application of 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... |
||||
| Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the scope of liability of secondary actors, such as lawyers and accountants, for securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In a 5-3 decision... |
third parties, such as investment banks, accounting firms and suppliers, can be shielded from liability if they engage in business with companies that are involved in securities fraud. | ||||
| Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 was a United States Supreme Court case, upholding the United States's sovereign immunity against tort claims brought when "any law enforcement officer" loses a person's property.... |
Case upholding the United States's sovereign immunity against tort claims brought when "any law enforcement officer" loses a person's property. | ||||
| Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the pre-emption clause of the Medical Device Amendment bars state common-law claims that challenges the effectiveness or safety of a medical device marketed in a form that received... |
Medical Device Amendment’s 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,... clause bars common-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the FDA. |
||||
| Preston v. Ferrer Preston v. Ferrer Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Federal Arbitration Act overrules state laws declaring that certain disputes must be resolved by a state administrative agency.... |
the Federal Arbitration Act Federal Arbitration Act In United States law, the Federal Arbitration Act is a statute that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held in Southland Corp. v. Keating... preempts 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,... state laws declaring that certain disputes must be resolved by a state administrative agency |
||||
| Snyder v. Louisiana Snyder v. Louisiana Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 , was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's... |
racial discrimination in jury selection 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... ; playing the "O.J. O. J. Simpson murder case The O. J. Simpson murder case was a criminal trial held in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court from January 29 to October 3, 1995. Former American football star and actor O. J... card" |
||||
| Medellín v. Texas Medellín v. Texas Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing";... |
whether the president may direct state courts to obey an order of the World Court ruling regarding 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... |
||||
| New Jersey v. Delaware New Jersey v. Delaware New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 , is a United States Supreme Court case in which New Jersey sued Delaware, invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under , following Delaware's denial of oil company BP's petition to build a liquefied natural gas pipeline and loading facility on the... |
boundary dispute between New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey is a state in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic regions of the United States. , its population was 8,791,894. It is bordered on the north and east by the state of New York, on the southeast and south by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Pennsylvania and on the southwest by Delaware... and Delaware Delaware Delaware is a U.S. state located on the Atlantic Coast in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. It is bordered to the south and west by Maryland, and to the north by Pennsylvania... involving the Twelve-Mile Circle |
||||
| MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent a state may tax companies that are not based in their state.... |
determination of state tax liability for corporation Corporation A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members. There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business. Early corporations were established by charter... operating in multiple states according to the "unitary business rule" |
||||
| Baze v. Rees Baze v. Rees Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 , was a United States Supreme Court case. The court agreed to hear the appeal of two men, Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling, who were sentenced to death in Kentucky. The men argue that executing them by lethal injection would violate the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and... |
constitutionality of lethal injection protocols 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... |
||||
| Virginia v. Moore Virginia v. Moore Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that addresses the use of evidence obtained by police in a search incident to an arrest which violates state law.-Background:... |
whether 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... requires suppression of evidence discovered in a search conducted in violation of state law |
||||
| Crawford v. Marion County Election Board Crawford v. Marion County Election Board Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 was a United States Supreme Court case holding that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did not violate the Constitution of the United States.-Background:... |
constitutionality of requiring voters to show ID before voting | ||||
| Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which upheld a Kentucky law that provides a preferential tax break to Kentucky residents who invest in bonds issued by the state and its municipalities... |
Kentucky Kentucky The Commonwealth of Kentucky is a state located in the East Central United States of America. As classified by the United States Census Bureau, Kentucky is a Southern state, more specifically in the East South Central region. Kentucky is one of four U.S. states constituted as a commonwealth... 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... providing a preferential tax break to Kentucky residents who invest in bonds Municipal bond A municipal bond is a bond issued by a city or other local government, or their agencies. Potential issuers of municipal bonds includes cities, counties, redevelopment agencies, special-purpose districts, school districts, public utility districts, publicly owned airports and seaports, and any... issued by the state and its municipalities does not discriminate against interstate commerce |
||||
| United States v. Williams United States v. Williams United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did not in fact... |
constitutionality of the PROTECT Act, a 2003 law intended to bolster federal restriction against child pornography Child pornography Child pornography refers to images or films and, in some cases, writings depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child... , in the wake of 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... |
||||
| Gomez-Perez v. Potter Gomez-Perez v. Potter Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that federal employees can assert claims for retaliation resulting from filing an age discrimination complaint... |
Federal employees who face retaliation after filing an age discrimination claim are authorized to sue under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. | ||||
| Quanta v. LG Electronics | patent exhaustion First-sale doctrine (patent) Under the exhaustion doctrine, doctrine of exhaustion, or first sale doctrine, the first unrestricted sale of a patented item exhausts the patentee's control over that particular item... and its applicability to certain types of method patents Business method patent Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking, tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the... |
||||
| Boumediene v. Bush Boumediene v. Bush Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 , was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba... |
whether the Military Detainee Treatment Act of 2006 unconstitutionally suspends the writ of 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... |
||||
| Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, No. 07-214, 553 U.S. 662 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must prove that the false claim was made with the specific intent of inducing the government to pay or approve... |
Plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must demonstrate that the defendants intended to deceive the government, not simply that government money was used to pay the claim. | ||||
| Munaf v. Geren Munaf v. Geren Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 , is a United States Supreme Court case where the court unanimously concluded that the habeas corpus statute, , extends to U.S... |
habeas corpus statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command | ||||
| Indiana v. Edwards Indiana v. Edwards In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the standard for competency to stand trial was not linked to the standard for competency to represent oneself. The Court had recognized these two rights separately for some time. In Dusky v. United States, ,... |
may a criminal defendant be competent to stand trial yet simultaneously not competent to represent himself Faretta v. California Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.-Facts of the case:... at that trial? |
||||
| Greenlaw v. United States Greenlaw v. United States In Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 , the Supreme Court held that a federal appeals court may not sua sponte increase a defendant's sentence unless the government first files a notice of appeal.-Facts:... |
may a federal appeals court sua sponte increase a defendant's sentence on appeal, without a formal appeal by the government? | ||||
| Rothgery v. Gillespie County Rothgery v. Gillespie County Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.-Factual background:Texas police had relied on erroneous information that Rothgery had a previous felony conviction to arrest him as a felon in possession of a firearm... |
does a criminal defendant have a right to counsel at an ex parte arraignment Arraignment Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal complaint in the presence of the defendant to inform the defendant of the charges against him or her. In response to arraignment, the accused is expected to enter a plea... ? |
||||
| Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from US$2.5 billion to US$500 million.The case was appealed... |
legality of 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... award under federal maritime law for the Exxon Valdez oil spill Exxon Valdez oil spill The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused... |
||||
| Kennedy v. Louisiana Kennedy v. Louisiana Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause did not permit a state to punish the crime of rape of a child with the death penalty; more broadly, the power of the state... |
does 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... forbid the death penalty for rape of a child? |
||||
| Giles v. California Giles v. California Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.-Factual background:The... |
the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to out of court statements by a witness only applies where the defendant caused the witness's absence in order to eliminate their testimony at trial | ||||
| District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 , was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as... |
does the Second Amendment Second Amendment to the United States Constitution The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second... allows a state or local government to outlaw the private possession of handguns? |
||||
| Davis v. Federal Election Commission Davis v. Federal Election Commission Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Sections 319 and of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on a candidate's First Amendment rights.-Background:Section 319 of the Bipartisan... |
"Millionaire's amendment" to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 violates 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... |
||||
| Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court on October 8, 2008 concerning the United States Navy ability to use sonar during drills causing possible harm to whales and other marine mammals.In balancing military preparedness... |
military Military A military is an organization authorized by its greater society to use lethal force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or perceived threats. The military may have additional functions of use to its greater society, such as advancing a political agenda e.g... preparedness outweighs environmental concerns, as Navy Navy A navy is the branch of a nation's armed forces principally designated for naval and amphibious warfare; namely, lake- or ocean-borne combat operations and related functions... needs to train its crews to detect modern, silent submarines |
||||
| Altria Group, Inc. v. Good | federal law does not preempt the states' prerogative to regulate the advertisement of tar and nicotine rates in cigarettes | ||||
| Herring v. United States Herring v. United States Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2009. The court, decided that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction,... |
evidence obtained during a search the police conducted as a result of an isolated act of negligence not related to the search is not subject to the 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... |
||||
| Oregon v. Ice Oregon v. Ice Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 , was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution doesn't inhibit States from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather... |
the facts necessary for imposing consecutive prison terms need not be submitted to a jury in accordance with 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... |
||||
| Waddington v. Sarausad Waddington v. Sarausad Waddington v. Sarausad was a court case handled by the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts that was argued in 2008. The case involved the conviction of Cesar Sarausad for second-degree murder due to his role as driver in a shooting regarding gang activity and high school... |
on federal habeas review, courts must accept state court determinations that jury instructions fully and correctly set out state law with regard to accomplice liability | ||||
| Pearson v. Callahan Pearson v. Callahan Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.The Court took to the unusual step of asking the parties to argue whether past precedent should be overturned. The theory under that 2001 decision, Saucier v. Katz, is that without courts first ruling on... |
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:... is overruled; courts need not determine whether a civil-rights plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated if they determine that the right was not clearly established at the time of the injury |
||||
Decided, but not yet reported
The cases listed in this section may be up to a year and a half old; however, they are not yet included in the U.S. ReportsUnited States Reports
The United States Reports are the official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinions of the court in each case, prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are...
. They are listed in order of the date on which they were decided, and a link is included to the Supreme Court's opinion.
| Case name | Opinion | Decided | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crawford v. Nashville Crawford v. Nashville Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 129 S.Ct. 846 , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects an employee who opposes unlawful sexual harassment, but does not report the harassment him or herself.-... |
1/26/09 | employees who cooperate with an internal investigation of alleged 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... are protected against retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. |
|
| Van de Kamp v. Goldstein | 1/26/09 | prosecutors are immune from suit under for improperly supervising the disclosures made by line prosecutors pursuant to Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United... |
|
| United States v. Hayes United States v. Hayes United States v. Hayes, 129 S.Ct. 1079 , is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting Section 921 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996... |
2/24/09 | under people who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes may not possess firearms as long as the government proves that the underlying offense involved a domestic relationship | |
| Pleasant Grove City v. Summum Pleasant Grove City v. Summum Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 , is a legal case heard by the United States Supreme Court on 12 November 2008 and decided on 25 February 2009... |
2/25/09 | a municipality Municipality A municipality is essentially an urban administrative division having corporate status and usually powers of self-government. It can also be used to mean the governing body of a municipality. A municipality is a general-purpose administrative subdivision, as opposed to a special-purpose district... that allows a privately donated 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,... monument Monument A monument is a type of structure either explicitly created to commemorate a person or important event or which has become important to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, or simply as an example of historic architecture... to be displayed on public property Public property Public property is property, which is dedicated to the use of the public. It is a subset of state property. The term may be used either to describe the use to which the property is put, or to describe the character of its ownership... need not permit the religion Religion Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to... of Summum Summum Summum is a religion and philosophy that began in 1975 as a result of Claude "Corky" Nowell's claimed encounter with beings he described as "Summa Individuals"... to put up its own statue of similar size |
|
| Negusie v. Mukasey Negusie v. Mukasey Negusie v. Holder , 555 U.S. 511 , was a legal case in which the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the issue whether the bar to asylum in the United States for persecutors applies to asylum applicants who have been the target of credible threats of harm or torture in their home countries... |
3/3/09 | under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Board of Immigration Appeals must decide in the first instance whether the so-called "persecutor bar" applicable to asylum applicants applies to those who were forced to persecute others in their home country | |
| Wyeth v. Levine Wyeth v. Levine Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 , is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.-Vermont jury trial:... |
3/4/09 | federal drug labeling requirements do not preempt state drug labeling requirements enacted to ensure that the public knew certain drugs are safe | |
| Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. ___ , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that parents could sue a school committee under grounds of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.- Background :... |
3/4/09 | Earlier decision overruled. Parents have the right to sue a school committee based on sexual harassment | |
| 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett | 4/1/09 | an employer and a union can agree that employees must resolve discrimination claims in arbitration instead of court | |
| Arizona v. Gant Arizona v. Gant Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence... |
4/21/09 | police power to search an arrested person's vehicle is limited to safety concerns and evidence related to the actual arrest | |
| AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen is a 2009 legal case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act cannot be considered in calculating employee pension benefits.-Background:... |
5/18/09 | Held that maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act Pregnancy discrimination Pregnancy discrimination occurs when expectant women are fired, not hired, or otherwise discriminated against due to their pregnancy or intention to become pregnant... is not retroactive and cannot be considered in calculating employee pension benefits. |
|
| FCC v. Fox Television Stations | 4/28/09 | upheld regulation of the FCC Federal Communications Commission The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government, created, Congressional statute , and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the... to ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts |
|
| Dean v. United States Dean v. United States Dean v. United States was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court upholding a 10 year penalty for the discharge of a firearm during the commission of any violent or drug trafficking crime, against a bank robber whose gun went off accidentally.- Facts :In 2004, a bank robber, Christopher M... |
4/29/09 | Upheld sentence for discharging a firearm during a violent crime, Congress intended a defendant to be held strictly liable for such an offense | |
| Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. | 6/8/09 | Due process requirements for judges' recusal Recusal Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide... |
|
| United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, No. 08-660, 556 U.S. ___ , was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must filed an appeal within 30... |
6/8/09 | Where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act False Claims Act The False Claims Act is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. The law includes a "qui tam" provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions on behalf of the government... must filed an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are a set of rules, promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States on recommendation of an advisory committee, to govern procedures in cases in the United States Courts of Appeals.... |
|
| District Attorney's Office v. Osborne | 6/18/09 | Found no due process, postconviction right to access to the state's evidence for DNA testing. | |
| Safford Unified School District v. Redding Safford Unified School District v. Redding Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. __ , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It held that a strip search of a middle schooler violated the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs presented a danger or that they... |
6/25/09 | strip search of a middle schooler violated the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear | |
| Ricci v. DeStefano Ricci v. DeStefano Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2671, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States arising from a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by twenty city firefighters alleging that the city discriminated against them with regard to promotions... |
6/29/09 | White firefighters in New Haven New Haven, Connecticut New Haven is the second-largest city in Connecticut and the sixth-largest in New England. According to the 2010 Census, New Haven's population increased by 5.0% between 2000 and 2010, a rate higher than that of the State of Connecticut, and higher than that of the state's five largest cities, and... suffered unfair discrimination Discrimination Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be... because of their race when the city scrapped the results of a promotional exam. |
|
| Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test... |
6/25/09 | are forensic laboratory reports admissible under the Confrontation Clause 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... as interpreted in 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... ? |
|
| Entergy v. Riverkeeper Entergy v. Riverkeeper Entergy v Riverkeeper was a case decided at the US Supreme Court on April 1, 2009. This case reviews the United States Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regards to cooling water intakes for power plants... |
4/1/09 | may 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... require power companies to engage in a cost-benefit analysis when selecting the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" at cooling water intake structures? |
|
| Ashcroft v. Iqbal Ashcroft v. Iqbal Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that top government officials were not liable for the actions of their subordinates absent evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity... |
5/18/09 | whether top government officials can be held personally liable for allegedly knowing or condoning of racial and religious mistreatment of suspected terrorists | |
| Cone v. Bell | 4/28/09 | whether a death row inmate has forfeited the opportunity to argue that prosecutors withheld evidence important to his defense | |
| Harbison v. Bell Harbison v. Bell Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. ___ was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that federal law gave indigent death row inmates the right to federally appointed counsel to represent them in post-conviction state clemency proceedings, when the state has declined to do so... |
4/1/09 | whether the federal government must provide lawyers to death row inmates seeking clemency in state proceedings | |
| Citizens United v. FEC Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, , was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions... |
1/21/10 | whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers | |
| Flores-Figueroa v. United States Flores-Figueroa v. United States Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. ___ , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the law enhancing the sentence for identity theft requires proof that an individual knew that the identity card or number he had used belonged to another, actual person... |
5/4/09 | whether the law enhancing the sentence for identity theft requries proof that an individual knew that the identity card or number he had used belonged to another, actual person | |
| Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey | 6/22/09 |
2010–2011
| Case name | Opinion | Decided | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Padilla v. Kentucky Padilla v. Kentucky Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea... |
3/31/10 | must a criminal defendant's lawyer advise him of the immigration-related consequences of a criminal conviction? | |
| Salazar v. Buono Salazar v. Buono Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. ___ was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the legality of the Mojave Memorial Cross, a Latin cross which was placed atop a prominent rock... |
4/28/10 | 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... restrictions on displaying a cross Christian cross The Christian cross, seen as a representation of the instrument of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, is the best-known religious symbol of Christianity... on public property |
|
| Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick | 3/2/10 | settlement of copyright infringement claims relating to an electronic database | |
| Graham v. Florida Graham v. Florida Graham v. Florida was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 2010, in which it was held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses. The court decided whether Roper v... |
|
5/17/10 | whether 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... should also apply to sentences of life without the possibility of parole |
| Ontario v. Quon Ontario v. Quon Ontario v. Quon, sometimes cited as City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. ___ , is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace... |
6/17/10 | Privacy rights of public employees over text messages on employer-issued pagers. | |
| McDonald v. Chicago McDonald v. Chicago McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states... |
6/28/10 | whether the Second Amendment Second Amendment to the United States Constitution The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second... should also apply against state and local governments |
|
| Abbott v. United States Abbott v. United States Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. ___ is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed the mandatory sentencing increase under federal law for the possession or use of a deadly weapon in drug trafficking and violent crimes... |
11/15/10 | Mandatory minimum sentences under federal sentencing law | |
| Los Angeles County v. Humphries Los Angeles County v. Humphries Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. ___ , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified one of the requirements for imposing liability on a municipality for violations of a federal right, in lawsuits brought under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 .The... |
11/30/10 | § 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... actions are limited to those caused by a municipality's "policy or custom" regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks monetary or prospective relief |
|
| Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore | 01/19/11 | Habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court. | |
| Swarthout v. Cooke | 01/24/11 | State prisoners have no Constitutional right to parole | |
| Brown v. Plata Brown v. Plata Brown v. Plata was a 2011 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights... |
05/23/11 | A three-judge panel of the District Court properly ordered the California prison system to release prisoners to resolve overcrowding. | |
| Connick v. Thompson Connick v. Thompson Connick v. Thompson was a case decided by United States Supreme Court on March 29, 2011. The case considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training... |
3/29/11 | A prosecutor's office cannot be held liable for a single Brady violation Brady material Brady material consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of... by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training. |
|
| Williamson v. Mazda | 2/23/11 | A car accident victim can sue the manufacturer for failing to install a shoulder/lap seatbelt even where federal law permits it to install only a lap belt. | |
| Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn | 4/4/11 | Taxpayers lack standing to challenge a tax credit program that provides dollar-for-dollar incentives to donations to school tuition groups, including those awarding tuition scholarships only to religious schools. | |
| Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. ___ is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law that punished businesses that hire illegal aliens.Chamber of Commerce v. WhitingChamber of Commerce v... |
5/26/11 | An Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants is not preempted 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,... by federal immigration law. |
|
| Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association | 6/27/11 | The Constitution prevents the state of California from banning the sale of violent video games to minors. | |
| Bullcoming v. New Mexico Bullcoming v. New Mexico Bullcoming v. New Mexico is a significant Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extent to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to... |
6/23/11 | A defendant's Confrontation Clause Confrontation Clause The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are... rights cover a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. |
Upcoming cases
The following is a partial list of cases that the Court has agreed to hear in October Term 2010 (October 2010-June 2011), listed in the order in which the Court agreed to hear them. These cases have not yet been decided.| Case name | Docket no. | Cert. granted on | Oral argument | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Golan v. Holder |
3/7/11 | TBD | Whether Congress can restore copyright protection to works that were formerly in the public domain. | |
| Lafler v. Cooper Missouri v. Frye |
|
1/7/11 | TBD | Whether a criminal defendant has a claim for 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... where his lawyer either deficiently advises him to reject a favorable plea (Lafler) or erroneously fails to communicate a plea offer to him (Frye). |