Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query constitutional or unconstitutional returned 476 results.

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

	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	INS V. CHADHA [Opinion]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Opinion]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Dissent]
	******** [Opinion]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Opinion]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN [Opinion]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Dissent]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT [Opinion]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Dissent]
	******** [Dissent]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Opinion]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Dissent]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Opinion]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Concurrence]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concurrence]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INS V. CHADHA [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS V. GATES [Concurrence]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concurrence]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Dissent]
	AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG. [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Concurrence]
	LUGAR V. EDMONDSON OIL CO., INC. [Opinion]
	BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA [Dissent]
	RENO V. ACLU [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	LUGAR V. EDMONDSON OIL CO., INC. [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Opinion]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Opinion]
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Dissent]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Concurrence]
	STREET V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. [Dissent]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC. [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Dissent]
	GRAYNED V. CITY OF ROCKFORD [Opinion]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Syllabus]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Concurrence]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Opinion]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CITY OF RENTON V. PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC. [Dissent]
	ENMUND V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ROE V. WADE [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Syllabus]
	BAKER V. CARR [Dissent]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Dissent]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Dissent]
	******** [Concurrence]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Opinion]
	WARTH V. SELDIN [Dissent]
	TRUAX V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	MAHER V. ROE [Dissent]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion]
	SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Opinion]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Dissent]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. BLACK [Syllabus] Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even though the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent]
	HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DIST. V. KUHLMEIER [Dissent]
	EX PARTE SIEBOLD [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Concurrence]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Opinion]
	BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA [Opinion]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Opinion]
	MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Opinion]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF [Opinion]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Concurrence]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Syllabus]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Dissent]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Concurrence]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Opinion]
	FRISBY V. SCHULTZ [Concurrence]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN []
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER [Dissent]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Opinion]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	IN RE GAULT [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concurrence]
	ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Opinion]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Dissent]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Opinion]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. SALERNO [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Dissent]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Concurrence]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	MARBURY V. MADISON [Opinion]
	MISSISSIPPI V. JOHNSON [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Concurrence]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Dissent]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP. [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	******** [Syllabus]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Dissent]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT [Syllabus] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Opinion]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	POLICE DEP'T V. MOSLEY [Opinion]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NIXON V. FITZGERALD [Dissent]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	TRUAX V. RAICH [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Opinion]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Opinion]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Opinion]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Opinion]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Dissent]
	******** [Dissent]
	DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Opinion]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. PARADISE [Opinion]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. JACKSON [Opinion]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Opinion]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Opinion]
	STREET V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	IN RE WINSHIP [Dissent]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Opinion]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Dissent]
	HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF [Syllabus]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MAHER V. ROE [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Opinion]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Opinion]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Opinion]
	GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Opinion]
	MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Concurrence]
	VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METROPOLITAN [Opinion]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Dissent]
	RENO V. ACLU [Concurrence]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent]
	ZEMEL V. RUSK [Opinion]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Opinion]
	STREET V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Dissent]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion]
	SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC. [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LOVETT [Concurrence]
	HOYT V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BLOCK V. HIRSH [Syllabus]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Concurrence]
	MULFORD V. SMITH [Opinion]
	ABLEMAN V. BOOTH [Opinion]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON [Opinion]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	BAKER V. CARR [Dissent]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AFROYIM V. RUSK [Dissent]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Opinion]
	GOLDBERG V. KELLY [Dissent]
	BOOTH V. MARYLAND [Dissent]
	OSBORNE V. OHIO [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LEON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KATZENBACH V. MORGAN [Dissent]
	BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC. [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Dissent]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Syllabus]
	MISSOURI V. JENKINS [Concurrence]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN [Opinion]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Opinion]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Concurrence]
	ILLINOIS V. GATES [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO [Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
	THOMAS V. CHICAGO PARK DIST. [Syllabus] A content-neutral time, place, and manner permit scheme regulating speech in a public forum need not contain the procedural safeguards described in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51.
	SABRI V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
	BUSH V. VERA, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	[Syllabus]
	FORSYTH COUNTY, GA. V. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992). [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	RENNE V. GEARY, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SCHAD V. ARIZONA, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	WEST LYNN CREAMERY V. HEALY, 512 U.S. 186 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. FRENCH [Syllabus] The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
	BARCLAYS BANK PLC V. FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL., 114 S. CT. 2268, 129 L. [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM. [Syllabus] Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HOPE V. PELZER [Syllabus] Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
	VICTOR V. NEBRAKSA, 511 U.S. 1 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
	YATES V. EVATT, 500 U.S. 391 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON, 508 U.S. 366 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. FLORIDA [Concurrence]
	MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus]
	NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. SWANN [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., INC. [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL []
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Opinion]
	LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO [Opinion]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Syllabus]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. V. WILSON [Opinion]
	WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Syllabus]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion]
	MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Opinion]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Dissent]
	SCHICK V. REED [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Dissent]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	TAYLOR V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Opinion]
	KIRKPATRICK V. PREISLER [Opinion]
	BOOS V. BARRY [Opinion]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	GRAVEL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Opinion]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concurrence]
	GOSS V. LOPEZ [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	MICHIGAN V. LONG [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Concurrence]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Dissent]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Opinion]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Syllabus]
	PRIZE CASES [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GRAYNED V. CITY OF ROCKFORD [Dissent]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Concurrence]
	CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE [Opinion]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Dissent]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Dissent]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Opinion]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Dissent]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. SALERNO [Dissent]
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Dissent]
	KATZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BUTLER [Syllabus]
	KATZENBACH V. MORGAN [Opinion]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Dissent]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES [Syllabus]
	ROE V. WADE [Dissent]
	POWERS V. OHIO [Dissent]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	JUREK V. TEXAS [Opinion]
	WILSON V. NEW [Opinion]
	FLETCHER V. PECK [Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ [Dissent]
	WILSON V. SEITER [Concurrence]
	GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN [Syllabus]
	MISSISSIPPI V. JOHNSON [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Dissent]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Dissent]
	AMBACH V. NORWICK [Opinion]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Opinion]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Opinion]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	BALLEW V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON [Opinion]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Concurrence]
	PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS [Syllabus]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY CO. V. WALLACE [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concurrence]
	YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. SALERNO [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Opinion]
	******** [Opinion]
	BOND V. FLOYD [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Syllabus]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Opinion]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN [Syllabus]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Dissent]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Concurrence]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Syllabus]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Dissent]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Concurrence]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Dissent]
	KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Syllabus]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Dissent]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Opinion]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Concurrence]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL [Opinion]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Opinion]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	LOVING V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion]
	MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	CRAIG V. BOREN [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. []
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. [Opinion]
	******** [Opinion]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Opinion]
	ESTELLE V. GAMBLE [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Syllabus]
	SPENCE V. WASHINGTON [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent]
	WENGLER V. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. [Opinion]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP [Syllabus]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Dissent]
	INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC. V. LEE [Concurrence]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Opinion]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent]
	BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC. [Opinion]
	ENMUND V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	WOOLEY V. MAYNARD [Opinion]
	MCLAURIN V. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS [Opinion]
	NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HATTER [Syllabus] The judgment below is reversed insofar as the Federal Circuit found that the application of Medicare taxes to the salaries of federal judges taking office before 1983 violated the Compensation Clause, but affirmed insofar as that court found the application of Social Security taxes to the salaries of judges taking office before 1984 unconstitutional; a 1984 salary increase received by federal judges did not cure the latter violation.
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	JAMES M. BEAM DISTILLING CO. V. GEORGIA, 501 U.S. 529 (1991) [Syllabus]
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Syllabus] 1. Does Revised Code of Washington 26.10.160(3) and the former RCW26.09.240 granting third parties, including grandparents, the right to petition for visitation rights with a minor child if the visitation is ""in the best interests of the child"" impermissibly interfere with a parent's fundamental interest in the ""care custody and companionship of a child"" as defined by the liberty and privacy provisions of the United States Constitution? 2. Did the Supreme Court of Washington err in Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), in holding that RCW 26. 10. 160(3) and the former RCW 26.09.240 are unconstitutional based upon the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment and the fundamental right to privacy inherent in the United States Constitution when it used the flawed premise that a parent's fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions is unassailable and that the state's parents patriae power to act in a child's welfare may not be invoked absent a finding of harm to the child or parental unfitness?
	WASH. AIRPORTS AUTH. V. NOISE ABATEMENT CITIZENS, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) [Syllabus]
	THORNTON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
	GILMORE V. TAYLOR, 508 U.S. 333 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF LADUE V. GILLEO, 114 S. CT. 2038, 129 L. ED. 2D 36 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DUNNIGAN, 507 U.S. 87 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LOCKHART V. FRETWELL, 506 U.S. 364 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. LUCAS, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF COMMERCE V. MONTANA, 503 U.S. 442 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MCMILLIAN V. MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, 520 U.S. 781 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT. V. UNITED REPORTINGPUBLISHING CORP. [Syllabus] Whether the government violates the First Amendment when it releases records but forbids their commercial use?
	DANIELS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
	TYLER V. CAIN [Syllabus] The rule in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39-that a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt-was not "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court," within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(2)(A).
	JINKS V. RICHLAND COUNTY [Syllabus] The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute includes a provision, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), that tolls the period of limitations for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The question presented is whether the tolling provision invades state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
	DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD, 512 U.S. 687 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS [Syllabus] Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Syllabus] Whether California's new blanket primary law-- which allows voters of any political affiliation to cross party lines at will and to participate in the selection of other parties nominees-- violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Whether the associational rights of political parties are afforded less protection under the First Amendment than the associational rights of other private associations."
	R. A. V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) [Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Syllabus] Whether a state law requiring a Boy Scout Troop to appoint an avowed homosexual and gray rights activist as an Assistant Scoutmaster responsible for communicating Boy Scouting's moral values to youth members abridges First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association."
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ROWLAND V. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HECK V. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. X-CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., 115 S. CT. 464, 130 L. ED. 2D 372 [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996). [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	SULLIVAN V. LOUISIANA., 508 U.S. 275 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SELING V. YOUNG [Syllabus] In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute: Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment."
	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. ROBBINS [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
	POWELL V. NEVADA, 511 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	PORTER V. NUSSLE [Syllabus] The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
	LAWRENCE V. TEXAS [Syllabus] 1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS [Syllabus] The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. KATO [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REICH V. COLLINS, 115 S. CT. 547, 130 L. ED. 2D 454 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE V. MCLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SOLE V. WYNER [Syllabus]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA DEP'T OF TAXATION, 509 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	LEATHERS V. MEDLOCK, 499 U.S. 439 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL [Syllabus] 1. Whether economic sanctions against Burma enacted by Congress in 1996-- three months after enactment of the Massachusetts Burma Law-- implicitly permit, or preempt, state and local selective purchasing laws regarding Burma. 2. Whether selective purchasing law such as the Massachusetts Burma Law represent ""market participation,"" not regulation, and are therefore exempt from claims based on the Foreign Commerce Clause and the foreign affairs power of the federal government. 3. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. 4. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law discriminate against foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause."
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GROH V. RAMIREZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF MONT. V. KURTH RANCH, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
	CITY OF LITTLETON V. Z. J. GIFTS D—4, L. L. C. [Syllabus] Whether the requirement of prompt judicial review imposed by FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), entails a prompt judicial determination or a prompt commencement of judicial proceedings?
	NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
	MORALES V. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, 504 U.S. 374 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	TUILAEPA V. CALIFORNIA, 512 U.S. 967 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	TRIVONA CORP. V. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF TREASURY, 498 U.S. 358 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. [Syllabus]
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Syllabus]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Dissent]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Dissent]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BUCHANAN V. WARLEY [Opinion]
	BUMPER V. NORTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Dissent]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Dissent]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TROP V. DULLES [Syllabus]
	WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO. [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ROSS [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Syllabus]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Syllabus]
	MINCEY V. ARIZONA [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MILLER [Opinion]
	INS V. CHADHA [Concurrence]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Dissent]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BALLEW V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Syllabus]
	TROP V. DULLES [Concurrence]
	******** [Opinion]
	MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Opinion]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. CLASS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1784 V. STOTTS [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	MATHEWS V. LUCAS [Opinion]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Concurrence]
	STANLEY V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GUEST [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN [Dissent]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Dissent]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EX PARTE GARLAND [Dissent]
	GOMEZ V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Dissent]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Dissent]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE [Opinion]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Dissent]
	BOARD OF ESTIMATE OF CITY OF NEW YORK V. MORRIS [Opinion]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Opinion]
	HUNT V. WASHINGTON STATE APPLE ADVERTISING COMMISSION [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KATZENBACH V. MCCLUNG [Syllabus]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Concurrence]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ROWAN V. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT [Opinion]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Opinion]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	BALLEW V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	SHELTON V. TUCKER [Dissent]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Dissent]
	COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS [Dissent]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	IN RE PRIMUS [Opinion]
	WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA [Dissent]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Syllabus]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Syllabus]
	VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METROPOLITAN [Syllabus]
	WARDEN V. HAYDEN [Dissent]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Concurrence]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Dissent]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Dissent]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Opinion]
	MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA [Syllabus]
	KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO [Dissent]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	TRIMBLE V. GORDON [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	ROE V. WADE [Concurrence]
	MINCEY V. ARIZONA [Concurrence]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Syllabus]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Dissent]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Concurrence]
	HOYT V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	WOOLEY V. MAYNARD [Dissent]
	EX PARTE GARLAND [Syllabus]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Syllabus]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., INC. [Opinion]
	OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Dissent]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Syllabus]
	STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES [Opinion]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion]
	PAUL V. DAVIS [Dissent]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Dissent]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	BOLGER V. YOUNGS DRUGS PRODS. CORP. [Syllabus]
	STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	BETTS V. BRADY [Opinion]
	HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Concurrence]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Dissent]
	BUCHANAN V. WARLEY [Syllabus]
	TERRY V. ADAMS []
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Dissent]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN [Syllabus]
	STEARNS V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. KLEIN [Dissent]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Opinion]
	WARTH V. SELDIN [Opinion]
	NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. V. STUART [Opinion]
	BOOS V. BARRY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concurrence]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH [Opinion]
	ROE V. WADE [Syllabus]
	BEAL V. DOE [Opinion]
	GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Dissent]
	LOCKHART V. MCCREE [Dissent]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Syllabus]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Dissent]
	SPENCE V. WASHINGTON [Dissent]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE [Concurrence]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	BURCH V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Concurrence]
	HARLOW V. FITZGERALD [Syllabus]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOOS V. BARRY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Syllabus]
	KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Dissent]
	ZEMEL V. RUSK [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Concurrence]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Syllabus]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Dissent]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Syllabus]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Opinion]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Opinion]
	PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD [Opinion]
	EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA [Opinion]
	STATE OF MISSOURI V. HOLLAND [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MATLOCK [Dissent]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES [Syllabus]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CALIFANO V. GOLDFARB [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. SALERNO [Dissent]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Opinion]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Concurrence]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. V. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS [Dissent]
	SMITH V. GOGUEN [Concurrence]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Concurrence]
	OSBORNE V. OHIO [Dissent]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Concurrence]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	WHALEN V. ROE [Concurrence]
	NEAR V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Syllabus]
	BURCH V. LOUISIANA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STANLEY V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Opinion]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	KENDALL V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Opinion]
	MASSIAH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	KASSEL V. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE [Dissent]
	MULFORD V. SMITH [Dissent]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Dissent]
	BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC. [Syllabus]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Opinion]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	HICKLIN V. ORBECK [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Concurrence]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA V. WHITCOMB [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Opinion]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. SHEPPARD [Opinion]
	POLICE DEP'T V. MOSLEY [Syllabus]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Dissent]
	******** [Opinion]
	LOCKETT V. OHIO [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Syllabus]
	ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON [Opinion]
	FRISBY V. SCHULTZ [Opinion]
	FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Opinion]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. PATTERSON [Opinion]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Opinion]
	CALDER V. BULL []
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TERRY V. ADAMS [Opinion]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Syllabus]
	WICKARD V. FILBURN [Opinion]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Concurrence]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Concurrence]
	WARD V. ROCK AGAINST RACISM [Dissent]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Dissent]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA V. WHITCOMB [Syllabus]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	COX V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	WILSON V. NEW [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STATE OF MISSOURI V. HOLLAND [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP. [Opinion]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Syllabus]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concurrence]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Dissent]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MILLER [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. WILKS [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA V. WHITCOMB [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. GUEST [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	******** [Dissent]
	FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON [Concurrence]
	BRANDENBURG V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	LEHMAN V. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS [Dissent]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Dissent]
	ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BELL V. OHIO [Opinion]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Opinion]
	RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN COMPANY [Syllabus]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Syllabus]
	INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	******** [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. MENDENHALL [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	CLARK V. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NONVIOLENCE [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Dissent]
	STANLEY V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Dissent]
	HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY [Dissent]
	SCHNEIDER V. RUSK [Opinion]
	STREET V. NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	NORRIS V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Concurrence]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	RENO V. CONDON [Opinion]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Syllabus]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion]
	HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Concurrence]
	HARLOW V. FITZGERALD [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence]
	MULFORD V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Concurrence]
	KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Opinion]
	UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION V. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD CO. [Opinion]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BRINEGAR V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MICHIGAN V. LONG [Dissent]
	BREWER V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNGER V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	PLYLER V. DOE [Concurrence]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Concurrence]
	BLOCK V. HIRSH [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. KLEIN [Syllabus]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. [Syllabus]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN [Dissent]
	CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE [Opinion]
	GREGG V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Syllabus]
	POELKER V. DOE [Opinion]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Syllabus]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Concurrence]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Syllabus]
	PENRY V. LYNAUGH [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Opinion]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Syllabus]
	PULLEY V. HARRIS [Dissent]
	BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 V. FRASER [Concurrence]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Syllabus]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Opinion]
	CHANDLER V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Opinion]
	COLEGROVE V. GREEN [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG [Opinion]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Opinion]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	WOOLEY V. MAYNARD [Dissent]
	SHELLEY V. KRAEMER [Opinion]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Concurrence]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 V. EARLS [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	EX PARTE GARLAND [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent]
	SMITH V. GOGUEN [Dissent]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. BUTTON [Dissent]
	FORD V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Concurrence]
	MAPP V. OHIO [Concurrence]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS [Dissent]
	THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS [Syllabus]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Concurrence]
	BROADRICK V. OKLAHOMA [Syllabus]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Opinion]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Concurrence]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Opinion]
	TEXAS V. JOHNSON [Opinion]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA [Dissent]
	GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	CITY OF RENTON V. PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC. [Opinion]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Syllabus]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS [Concurrence]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. JACKSON [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Concurrence]
	NEW YORK V. CLASS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Concurrence]
	MALLOY V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Dissent]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES [Dissent]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK [Syllabus]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Opinion]
	BOOTH V. MARYLAND [Dissent]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Dissent]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Syllabus]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Syllabus]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Dissent]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG. [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO [Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. BLACK [Syllabus] Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even though the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HOPE V. PELZER [Syllabus] Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. FRENCH [Syllabus] The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. ROBBINS [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF COMMERCE V. MONTANA, 503 U.S. 442 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM. [Syllabus] Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
	BROWN V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	SABRI V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
	DANIELS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA DEP'T OF TAXATION, 509 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	SELING V. YOUNG [Syllabus] In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute: Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment."
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	WASH. AIRPORTS AUTH. V. NOISE ABATEMENT CITIZENS, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [Syllabus]
	WEST LYNN CREAMERY V. HEALY, 512 U.S. 186 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY [Syllabus]
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SCHAD V. ARIZONA, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) [Syllabus]
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS [Syllabus] Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
	JAMES M. BEAM DISTILLING CO. V. GEORGIA, 501 U.S. 529 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	RENNE V. GEARY, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FORSYTH COUNTY, GA. V. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	TYLER V. CAIN [Syllabus] The rule in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39-that a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt-was not "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court," within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(2)(A).
	REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. X-CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., 115 S. CT. 464, 130 L. ED. 2D 372 [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996). [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GROH V. RAMIREZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF MONT. V. KURTH RANCH, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	MCMILLIAN V. MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, 520 U.S. 781 (1997). [Syllabus]
	JINKS V. RICHLAND COUNTY [Syllabus] The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute includes a provision, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), that tolls the period of limitations for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The question presented is whether the tolling provision invades state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
	DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD, 512 U.S. 687 (1994). [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. LOUISIANA., 508 U.S. 275 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	TUILAEPA V. CALIFORNIA, 512 U.S. 967 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REICH V. COLLINS, 115 S. CT. 547, 130 L. ED. 2D 454 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	SLACK V. MCDANIEL [Syllabus] If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
	WISCONSIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL., 517 U.S. 1 (1996). [Syllabus]
	COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
	DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	FREEMAN V. PITTS, 498 U.S. 1081 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PATANE [Syllabus] Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
	DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. MURPHY [Syllabus] Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MU'MIN V. VIRGINIA, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL [Syllabus] The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
	ZADVYDAS V. DAVIS [Syllabus] The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, implicitly limits an alien's detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention; the application of that limitation is subject to federal court review.
	SOLDAL V. COOK COUNTY, ILL., 506 U.S. 56 (1992). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TENNARD V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-SALAZAR [Syllabus] Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). [Syllabus]
	INS V. ST. CYR [Syllabus] Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PERETZ V. UNITED STATES, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause.
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC [Syllabus] The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
	CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
	CUSTIS V. UNITED STATES, 114 S. CT. 1732, 128 L. ED. 2D 517 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996) [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. CRANE [Syllabus] Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, set forth no requirement that a dangerous sexual offender have a total or complete lack of control to civilly commit him, but the Constitution does not permit such commitment without any lack-of-control determination.
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. COTTON [Syllabus] A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
	UNITED STATES V. RUIZ [Syllabus] The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
	CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY [Syllabus] Respondent did not state an actionable claim when she alleged that she was denied access to courts by Government officials, who intentionally deceived her in concealing information that her husband had been tortured and killed by the Guatemalan army.
	FRANKLIN V. MASSASSACHUSETTS., 505 U.S. 788 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LARA [Syllabus] Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
	DALTON V. SPECTER, 114 S. CT. 1719, 128 L. ED. 2D 497 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. LEATHERMANTOOL GROUP, INC. [Syllabus] Courts of Appeals should apply a de novo, not an abuse-of-discretion, standard when reviewing district court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [Syllabus]
	OVERTON V. BAZZETTA [Syllabus] In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	RING V. ARIZONA [Syllabus] Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, is irreconcilable with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and is, accordingly, overruled to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, see 497 U. S., at 647-649. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494, n. 19, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
	HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) [Syllabus]
	SAUCIER V. KATZ [Syllabus] A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making an arrest; petitioner, a military police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in arresting respondent.
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	GODINEZ V. MORAN, 509 U.S. 389 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	UTAH V. EVANS [Syllabus] The Census Bureau's use of "hot-deck imputation" to fill in gaps in census information and resolve conflicts in the data does not violate 13 U. S. C. §195, which forbids use of "the statistical method known as 'sampling' " in determining population for purposes of apportioning congressional Representatives, and is not inconsistent with the Constitution's Census Clause, which requires an "actual Enumeration" of each State's population.
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [Syllabus]
	MEDINA V. CALIFORNIA, 505 U.S. 437 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE, 112 S. CT. 2727, 120 L. ED. 2D 575 (1992). [Syllabus]
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS [Syllabus] Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consistent with the Clean Waters Act and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters solely because those waters solely because those waters do or potentially could serve as habitat of migratory birds."
	ARAVE V. CREECH, 507 U.S. 463 (1993). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. TEXAS, 509 U.S. 350 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GREGORY V. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT [Syllabus] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
	MISSOURI V. JENKINS, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 738 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."
	KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Syllabus]
	EDMONSON V. LEESVILLE CONCRETE CO., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) [Syllabus]
	F.C.C. V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. V. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAXATION, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	ALBRIGHT V. OLIVER, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CONN V. GABBERT [Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. SHELTON [Syllabus] Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	YATES V. EVATT, 500 U.S. 391 (1991) [Syllabus]