Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean fifth and ?

Your query fifth and ... returned 203 results.

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

	PENRY V. JOHNSON [Syllabus] The jury instructions at Penry's resentencing for capital murder did not comply with the Court's mandate in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302; the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	BANKS V. DRETKE [Syllabus] In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	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.
	MILLER-EL V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	TENNARD V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	TREST V. CAIN, 522 U.S. 87 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. V. RASH ET UX., 117 S.CT. 1879, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	BREWER V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	ROELL V. WITHROW [Syllabus] When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
	KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). [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.
	REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
	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.
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEGGERLY, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
	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.
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	GRUPO DATAFLUX V. ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, L. P. [Syllabus] (1) Did the court of appeals err by creating a new exception to the longstanding rule that diversity jurisdiction must be determined based on a party's citizenship and circumstances as they existed at the time suit was filed? (2) Did the court of appeals err by allowing a unilateral change in a party's citizenship during the course of litigation to create diversity jurisdiction that did not exist at the time suit was filed?
	CELOTEX CORP. V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 300 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROTELLA V. WOOD [Syllabus] In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	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).
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	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.
	CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. [Syllabus]
	OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus]
	CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY [Syllabus] Whether a public agency governed by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 207 (o), may absent a preexisting agreement, require its employees to use accrued compensatory time."
	FOSTER V. LOVE, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BOND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
	[Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). [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."
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEAN [Syllabus] The absence of an actual denial by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of a felon's petition for relief from firearms disabilities precludes judicial review under 18 U. S. C. §925(c).
	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.
	DRETKE V. HALEY [Syllabus] Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SIMS V. APFEL [Syllabus] May a federal court, without any statutory or regulatory authority in support thereof, and contrary to the informal non-adversarial nature of the Social Security administrative appeal process, impose an ''issue exhaistion"" requirement upon Social Security claimants in federal court to bar issues that were not specifically raised by the claimant during the administrative appeal process."
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON [Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
	BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRYAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA V. BROWN, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FREW V. HAWKINS [Syllabus] This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. O'NEILL, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NOBELMAN V. AMERICAN SAV. BANK, 508 U.S. 324 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) [Syllabus]
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 507 U.S. 529 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). [Syllabus]
	IRWIN V. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF DEFENSE V. F.L.R.A., 510 U.S. 487 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MOREAU V. KLEVENHAGEN, 508 U.S. 22 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE, 112 S. CT. 2727, 120 L. ED. 2D 575 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ANKENBRANDT V. RICHARDS, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 461 (1993). [Syllabus]
	EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT, INC. V. AMCLYDE, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) [Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MORALES V. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, 504 U.S. 374 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LEATHERMAN V. TARRANT COUNTY NARCOTICS INTELLIGENCE & COORDINATION UNIT, [Syllabus]
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SHANNON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. SCHLEIER, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MISSISSIPPI V. LOUISIANA, 506 U.S. 73 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 654 (1996). [Syllabus]
	TWO PESOS, INC. V. TACO CABANA, INC., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FARRAR V. HOBBY, 506 U.S. 103 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MCFARLAND V. SCOTT, 512 U.S. 849 (1994). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. KEYSTONE CONSOL. INDUS., 508 U.S. 152 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MAYLE V. FELIX [Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995). [Syllabus]
	COLLINS V. YOUNGBLOOD, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) [Syllabus]
	DEAL V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 129 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. [Syllabus] Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [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.
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	PORTUONDO V. AGARD [Syllabus] Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 509 (1965)-- which prohibited a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's right to remain silent-- to a prosecutor's comment on a testifying defendant's presence in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses?
	UNITED STATES V. PATANE [Syllabus] Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). [Syllabus]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	FELLERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
	BATH IRON WORKS V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 506 [Syllabus]
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
	DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD, 512 U.S. 687 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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)?"
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	KELO V. NEW LONDON [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BROGAN V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MCNEIL V. WISCONSIN, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SAN REMO HOTEL, L. P. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO [Syllabus]
	PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND [Syllabus] Petitioner's claim that Rhode Island's application of its wetlands regulations took his property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause is ripe for review and is not barred by his acquisition of title after the regulations' effective date; however, he failed to establish a deprivation of all economic use, for the parcel retains significant development value.
	LILLY V. VIRGINIA [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.
	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.
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	DEMORE V. KIM [Syllabus] Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
	HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE V. TULANE ED. FUND, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus] The District Court's conclusion that North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing its Twelfth Congressional District's boundaries is based on clearly erroneous findings.
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA [Syllabus] Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
	SUITUM V. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LAMIE V. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE [Syllabus] Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	THUNDER BASIN COAL V. REICH, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). [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.
	UNITED STATES V. SALERNO, 505 U.S. 317 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
	HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSN. V. TEXAS ATTORNEY GEN., 501 U.S. 419 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GRATZ V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
	MINNICK V. MISSISSIPPI,. 498 U.S. 146 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CISNEROS V. ALPINE RIDGE GROUP, 508 U.S. 10 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MISSOURI V. SEIBERT [Syllabus] Is the rule that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985), abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?
	CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CHISOM V. ROEMER, 501 U.S. 380 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. LOUISIANA., 508 U.S. 275 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DECK V. MISSOURI [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?
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 504 U.S. 36 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HAMDI V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus] Did the court of appeals erred in holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to be an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan?
	LONCHAR V. THOMAS, WARDEN, 517 U.S. 314 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). [Syllabus]
	YEE V. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CAL., 503 U.S. 519 (1992). [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BENNIS V. MICHIGAN, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. BOSTON & ME. CORP., 503 U.S. 407 (1992). [Syllabus]
	DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
	F.C.C. V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	STOGNER V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] 1. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations requirement, which historically comprised an element of the crimes charged, so as to charge Petitioner retroactively, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? 2. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the Statute of limitations arbitrarily retract a liberty interest the state had conferred on Petitioner?
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RICHMOND V. LEWIS, 506 U.S. 56 (1992). [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF ARG. V. WELTOVER, INC., 504 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	TEXAS V. COBB [Syllabus] Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
	FREYTAG V. COMMISSIONER, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) [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."
	SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
	SIEGERT V. GILLEY, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONCOMM. [Syllabus]