Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query environment or environmental or EPA returned 86 results.

	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 114 S. CT. 1588, 128 L. ED., 511 U.S. 328 (1994) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Syllabus]
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Dissent]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion]
	KEY TRONIC CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 809 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY V. WASHINGTON DEP'T OF ECOLOGY, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) [Syllabus]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY V. OHIO, 503 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	TRAIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR V. MORTIER, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Dissent]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Dissent]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [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?
	INS V. CHADHA [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Opinion]
	FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Dissent]
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Opinion]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Opinion]
	OHIO FORESTRY ASSN., INC. V. SIERRA CLUB, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BESTFOODS, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORTON V. SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE [Syllabus] Whether the authority of the federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" extends to the review of the adequacy of an agency's ongoing management of public lands under general statutory standards and its own land use plans?
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	[Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	ORR V. ORR [Dissent]
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Concurrence]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	SOLE V. WYNER [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT V. HUNT, 504 U.S. 334 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Dissent]
	******** [Opinion]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 503 U.S. 569 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	SOUTH FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. V.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE [Syllabus] Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
	FULTON CORP. V. FAULKNER, SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF N. C., 516 U.S. 325 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ASSOCIATED INDUS. OF MO. V. LOHMAN, 114 S. CT. 1815, 128 L. ED. 2D 639 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCINGSOUTHEAST, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding-contrary to decisions of this Court, other courts of appeals, and state courts, as well as the Restatements and leading treatises-that petitioner could not receive restitution of the $78 million paid to the United States for oil and gas leases following the enactment of a statute, which the trial court found ""clearly reduce(d) the value and materially alter(ed) the structure and framework"" of those leases, because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	OREGON WASTE SYS. V. DEPARTMENT OF ENVTL. QUALITY OF ORE., 511 U.S. 93 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, N.Y., 114 S. CT. 1677, 128 L. [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP. [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSN. V.DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR [Syllabus] Whether the Contract Disputed Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private parties for the development, operation, and maintenance of concessions, such as restaurants, lodges, and gift shops, in the national parks.
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995) [Syllabus]
	SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS [Syllabus] Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consistent with the Clean Waters Act and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters solely because those waters solely because those waters do or potentially could serve as habitat of migratory birds."
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Dissent]
	DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Opinion]
	HICKLIN V. ORBECK [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Concurrence]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Concurrence]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Opinion]
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Opinion]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Opinion]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON [Opinion]
	WARD V. ROCK AGAINST RACISM [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Opinion]
	******** [Opinion]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE [Concurrence]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Concurrence]
	PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO. V. NEW YORK CITY [Opinion]
	PALMORE V. SIDOTI [Opinion]
	LEHMAN V. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS [Dissent]
	KENT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Opinion]
	TRAIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Concurrence]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Concurrence]
	INS V. CHADHA [Syllabus]
	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 114 S. CT. 1588, 128 L. ED., 511 U.S. 328 (1994) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [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?
	FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
	KEY TRONIC CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 809 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY V. WASHINGTON DEP'T OF ECOLOGY, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY V. OHIO, 503 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR V. MORTIER, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCINGSOUTHEAST, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding-contrary to decisions of this Court, other courts of appeals, and state courts, as well as the Restatements and leading treatises-that petitioner could not receive restitution of the $78 million paid to the United States for oil and gas leases following the enactment of a statute, which the trial court found ""clearly reduce(d) the value and materially alter(ed) the structure and framework"" of those leases, because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, N.Y., 114 S. CT. 1677, 128 L. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	HARRIS V. FORKLIFT SYS., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OHIO FORESTRY ASSN., INC. V. SIERRA CLUB, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BESTFOODS, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORTON V. SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE [Syllabus] Whether the authority of the federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" extends to the review of the adequacy of an agency's ongoing management of public lands under general statutory standards and its own land use plans?
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	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)?
	CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT V. HUNT, 504 U.S. 334 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SOLE V. WYNER [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [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.
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP. [Syllabus]
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSN. V.DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR [Syllabus] Whether the Contract Disputed Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private parties for the development, operation, and maintenance of concessions, such as restaurants, lodges, and gift shops, in the national parks.
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	OREGON WASTE SYS. V. DEPARTMENT OF ENVTL. QUALITY OF ORE., 511 U.S. 93 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FULTON CORP. V. FAULKNER, SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF N. C., 516 U.S. 325 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	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.
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 515 U.S. 1 (1995) [Syllabus]
	SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS [Syllabus] Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consistent with the Clean Waters Act and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters solely because those waters solely because those waters do or potentially could serve as habitat of migratory birds."
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 503 U.S. 569 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	GADE V. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MGMT. ASS'N, 505 U.S. 88 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SOUTH FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. V.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE [Syllabus] Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
	NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES [Syllabus]
	ASSOCIATED INDUS. OF MO. V. LOHMAN, 114 S. CT. 1815, 128 L. ED. 2D 639 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
	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.
	CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. V. GOTTSHALL, 114 S. CT. 2396, 129 L. ED. 2D 427 (1994) [Syllabus]