Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query first amendment returned 495 results.

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

	[Syllabus]
	FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYOKABUSHIKI CO. [Syllabus] Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 117 S.CT. 1871, 138 L.ED.2D 135 (1997). [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [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.
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [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.
	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?
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. V. SCHOONEJONGEN, 514 U.S. 73 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (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)?
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [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.
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) [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."
	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.
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 544 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SOLDAL V. COOK COUNTY, ILL., 506 U.S. 56 (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?"
	P.R. AQUEDUCT & SEWER AUTH. V. METCALF & EDDY, INC., 506 U.S. 139 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Syllabus]
	ALBRIGHT V. OLIVER, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [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?
	LEATHERS V. MEDLOCK, 499 U.S. 439 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	MAYLE V. FELIX [Syllabus]
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [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?
	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.
	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).
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	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.
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [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?
	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.
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN [Syllabus] Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [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?
	SOCHOR V. FLORIDA, 504 U.S. 527 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996) [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.
	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.
	FLORIDA V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	KYLLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Where the Government uses a device, such as a thermal imager, that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
	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.
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MCNEIL V. WISCONSIN, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) [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®.
	WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS V.LOPEZ TORRES [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF WIS. SYSTEMV. SOUTHWORTH [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment is offended by a policy or program under which public university students must pay mandatory fees that are used in part to support organizations that engage in political speech.
	BARTNICKI V. VOPPER [Syllabus] Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
	HESS V. PORT AUTH.. TRANS-HUDSON CORP., 115 S. CT. 394, 130 L. ED. 2D 245 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	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."
	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.
	JOHANNS V. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSN. [Syllabus]
	MUEHLER V. MENA [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [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.
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (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?
	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.
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN V. MITCHELL, 508 U.S. 47 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BLATCHFORD V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NOATAK, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GLICKMAN V. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., 117 S.CT. 2130, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WATERS V. CHURCHILL, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) [Syllabus]
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [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.
	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."
	ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.. V. F.C.C. , 512 U.S. 622 (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. IDAHO EX REL. DIR., IDAHO DEP'T OF WATER RESOURCES, 508 U.S. 1 (1993) [Syllabus]
	NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC. [Syllabus] Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	VOINOVICH V. QUILTER, 507 U.S. 146 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	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?
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	STINSON V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 36 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	[Syllabus]
	LAPIDES V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYSTEMOF GA. [Syllabus] A State waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.
	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.
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	AUSTIN V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) [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.
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [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. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. HICKS [Syllabus] 1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
	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?
	CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND V. HEINZ [Syllabus] Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [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.
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS [Syllabus] Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
	INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND [Syllabus] Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	DUNN V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 519 U.S. 465 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. DOE, 519 U.S. 425 (1997). [Syllabus]
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. LOUISIANA., 508 U.S. 275 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GENTILE V. STATE BAR OF NEVADA, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) [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)?"
	MARKMAN ET AL. V. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., ET AL., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE [Syllabus] The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment.
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [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?
	PAYNE V. TENNESSEE, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	GREGORY V. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MASSON V. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENTGROUP, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post- judgment motions under Rule 59 (e) and 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motion were pending.
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995). [Syllabus]
	EDENFIELD V. FANE, 507 U.S. 761 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [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."
	[Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	SCARBOROUGH V. PRINCIPI [Syllabus] Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	HONDA MOTOR CO. V. OBERG, 512 U.S. 415 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GILMORE V. TAYLOR, 508 U.S. 333 (1993). [Syllabus]
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GEORGIA V. MCCOLLUM, 505 U.S. 42 (1992) [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION [Syllabus] Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. RODRIGUEZ, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [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.
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) [Syllabus]
	RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. LUCAS, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [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?
	[Syllabus]
	HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) [Syllabus]
	WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] The Child Online Protection Act's reliance on "community standards" to identify what World Wide Web material "is harmful to minors" does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes.
	JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. [Syllabus] Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CONN V. GABBERT [Syllabus]
	LILLY V. VIRGINIA [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."
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. EDGE BROADCASTING, 509 U.S. 418 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CARMELL V. TEXAS [Syllabus] Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
	MARYLAND V. WILSON, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). [Syllabus]
	FORD V. GEORGIA, 498 U.S. 411 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BENNIS V. MICHIGAN, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CHISOM V. ROEMER, 501 U.S. 380 (1991) [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. BOSTON & ME. CORP., 503 U.S. 407 (1992). [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.
	ARKANSAS ED. TELEVISION COMM'N V. FORBES, 523 U.S. 666 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	WYOMING V. HOUGHTON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BANKS [Syllabus] Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
	MORGAN V. ILLINOIS, 504 U.S. 719 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. SEITER, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO [Syllabus] Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
	[Syllabus]
	CLINGMAN V. BEAVER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. JIMENO, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) [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.
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR, 515 U.S. 593 (1995). [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?
	WALLACE V. KATO [Syllabus]
	NELSON V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N OF MD. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RIVERS V. ROADWAY EXPRESS, 511 U.S. 298 (1994). [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?
	[Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	MU'MIN V. VIRGINIA, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PATANE [Syllabus] Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON, 508 U.S. 366 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ROMANO V. OKLAHOMA, 512 U.S. 1 (1994). [Syllabus]
	KNOWLES V. IOWA [Syllabus]
	BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) [Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU [Syllabus] Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	SAN REMO HOTEL, L. P. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) [Syllabus]
	R. A. V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) [Syllabus]
	HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. V. LYONS [Syllabus] 1. Whether section 144 of the 1996 Farm Bill creates an unmistakably clear blanket exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause For California's interstate regulation of the dairy industry, which would be otherwise limited by this Court's holding in baldwin v. G.A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935), and its progeny? 2. Whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an unmistakably clear Congressional exemption to the negative Commerce Clause?
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	CITY OF CINCINNATI V. DISCOVERY NETWORK, 507 U.S. 410 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S 322 (1996). [Syllabus]
	INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY [Syllabus] 1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [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.
	OHIO V. ROBINETTE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V. BABBITT [Syllabus] 1. Destroy the protection and priority statutorily accorded to adjudicated rights to graze livestock on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, by replacing established ""grazing preferences"" with variable ""permitted uses"", 2. Provide that the United States in the future will have title to structural range improvements made and paid for by grazing permittees: and 3. Allow grazing permits to be issued to persons not ""engaged the livestock business."""
	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."
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	CONNECTICUT DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY V. DOE [Syllabus] The Second Circuit's judgment enjoining the public disclosure provisions of Connecticut's "Megan's Law" must be reversed because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact, here, current dangerousness, that is not material to the State's statutory scheme.
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEVLIN V. SCARDELLETTI [Syllabus] Nonnamed class members who have objected in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening in the lawsuit.
	SALE V. HAITIAN CTRS. COUNCIL, 113 S. CT. 2549, 113 S. CT. 2549, 125 L., 509 U.S. 155 (1993) [Syllabus]
	BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus] Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
	TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BURDICK V. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	F.D.I.C. V. MEYER, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). [Syllabus]
	KELO V. NEW LONDON [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	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.
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus] Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR [Syllabus] Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD, 512 U.S. 687 (1994). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LOCKYER V. ANDRADE [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Andrade's sentence for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	BROGAN V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF ARG. V. WELTOVER, INC., 504 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	TENNARD V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	NORTHEASTERN FLA. CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GEN. CONTRACTORS V. CITY OF [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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?
	KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DEVENPECK V. ALFORD [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW [Syllabus] Whether a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable police officer, who is patrolling a high crime area, is sufficiently suspicious to justify a temporary investigator stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio.
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	ROWLAND V. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. V. UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ELDER V. HOLLOWAY, 510 U.S. 510 (1994). [Syllabus]
	THUNDER BASIN COAL V. REICH, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. X-CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., 115 S. CT. 464, 130 L. ED. 2D 372 [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	J.E.B. V. ALABAMA EX REL. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	LANKFORD V. IDAHO, 500 U.S. 110 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. HUNT, 116 S.CT. 1894, 135 L.ED.2D 207 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ROGERS V. TENNESSEE [Syllabus] The Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to petitioner of its decision abolishing the common law " year and a day rule" did not deny petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	PHILLIPS V. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) [Syllabus]
	PLILER V. FORD [Syllabus] (1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Syllabus]
	F.C.C. V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). [Syllabus]
	RIGGINS V. NEVADA, 504 U.S. 127 (1992). [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.
	LEWIS V. JEFFERS, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) [Syllabus]
	OWEN V. OWEN, 500 U.S. 305 (1991) [Syllabus]
	OSBORN V. HALEY [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?
	NORDLINGER V. HAHN, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LANE V. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 518 U.S. 187 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BURSON V. FREEMAN, 504 U.S. 191 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
	WIGGINS V. SMITH [Syllabus] Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
	BURLINGTON NORTHERN R. V. FORD, 504 U.S. 648 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAYS, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) [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?
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	RENNE V. GEARY, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GLOVER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	POWELL V. NEVADA, 511 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. ACEVEDO, 498 U.S. 807 (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?
	DENTON V. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE V. MCLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) [Syllabus]
	AYERS V. BELMONTES [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BELL V. CONE [Syllabus] Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	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.
	KNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 738 (1994). [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. MARYLAND, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 461 (1993). [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.
	PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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. SALERNO, 505 U.S. 317 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 504 U.S. 36 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CISNEROS V. ALPINE RIDGE GROUP, 508 U.S. 10 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution; the evidence in this case is insufficient to support summary judgment for respondents on the dilution count.
	FOUCHA V. LOUISIANA, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CONNECTICUT V. DOEHR, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	REED V. FARLEY, 512 U.S. 339 (1994). [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. J. L. [Syllabus] Whether an anonymous tip which states that a person is carrying a concealed firearm at a specific location, with a detailed description of the person and his attire, is sufficiently reliable to justify an investigatory detention and frisk where the police immediately verify the accuracy of the tip?"
	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?
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SOLE V. WYNER [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO.,, 516 U.S. 152 (1996) [Syllabus]
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [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?
	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.
	IBANEZ V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 512 U.S. 136 (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE, 112 S. CT. 2727, 120 L. ED. 2D 575 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON [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.
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	ENTERGY LA., INC. V. LOUISIANA PUB. SERV. COMM’N [Syllabus] Whether Mississippi Power & light v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (1988), and Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986), require a state public utility commission to allow an electric utility member of a multi-state power system to recover, in retail rates, the costs allocated to it by a rate schedule of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), or whether the state commission has jurisdiction to decide that it was imprudent for such a utility to incur the costs allocated to it under a FERC rate schedule, thereby trapping such wholesale costs?
	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.
	POWERS V. OHIO, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LEATHERMAN V. TARRANT COUNTY NARCOTICS INTELLIGENCE & COORDINATION UNIT, [Syllabus]
	MICKENS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] In order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where the trial court fails to inquire into defense counsel's potential conflict of interest about which the court knew or reasonably should have known, the defendant must establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance.
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	YEE V. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CAL., 503 U.S. 519 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HELLER V. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	BREUER V. JIM’S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC. [Syllabus] Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. V. FINK, 522 U.S. 221 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. GREATER WASHINGTON BD. OF TRADE, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS V. LEE, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MFRS. OFAMERICA V. WALSH [Syllabus] 1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BUSH V. VERA, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MINNICK V. MISSISSIPPI,. 498 U.S. 146 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF OKLAHOMA CITY V. DOWELL, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONCOMM. [Syllabus]
	SIEGERT V. GILLEY, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. [Syllabus] Whether the district court erred in concluding that, because Bossier Parish School Board’s 1992 redistricting plan was not enacted with a retrogressive purpose, it was not enacted with ""the purpose *** of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,"" within the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S C. 1973c.
	LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BOOTH V. CHURNER [Syllabus] Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
	STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
	CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [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.
	GARNER  V.  JONES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
	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?
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. CONDON [Syllabus] Whether the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, contravenes constitutional principles of federalism.
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [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.
	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."
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [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?
	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."
	RICHMOND V. LEWIS, 506 U.S. 56 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995). [Syllabus]