Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query federal and courts returned 472 results.

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

	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Opinion]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Dissent]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION V. SOLIMINO, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND, 115 S. CT. 537, 130 (1994) [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Concurrence]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SAN REMO HOTEL, L. P. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO [Syllabus]
	COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) [Syllabus]
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA V. DEEP SEA RESEARCH, INC., 523 U.S. 491 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GASPERINI V. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC., 517 U.S. 1102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SEMTEK INT’L INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Is this Court's holding in Dupasseur-- that the resjudicata effect of the judgment of a federal court sitting in diversity ""is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances,"" and that ""no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed,"" 88 U. S. at 135-- still good law? 2. If Dupasseur is overruled or modified by this Court, what should be the res judicata effect of a statute of limitations dismissal in a federal court diversity suit?"
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA [Syllabus]
	MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUS. CO., LTD., ET AL. V. EPSTEIN ET AL., 516 U.S. 367 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS V. S. G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992). [Syllabus]
	RHINES V. WEBER [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER [Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [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?
	QUACKENBUSH, CAL. INS. COMM'R, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) [Syllabus]
	MEDELLIN V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [Syllabus]
	EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE [Syllabus]
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS, INC. V. DARUEENGINEERING & MFG. [Syllabus]
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [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""?
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CARDINAL CHEMICAL CO. V. MORTON INTER'L, 508 U.S. 83 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	KAMEN V. KEMPER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. PHILIP MORRIS COS. [Syllabus]
	REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA V. ALTMANN [Syllabus] Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
	RIVET V. REGIONS BANK OF LA., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HINCK V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CATERPILLAR INC. V. LEWIS, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) [Syllabus]
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LONCHAR V. THOMAS, WARDEN, 517 U.S. 314 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. V. HENSON [Syllabus] The All Writs Act does not furnish removal jurisdiction; that Act, alone or in combination with the existence of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, is not a substitute for 28 U. S. C. §1441's requirement that a federal court have original jurisdiction over an action in order for it to be removed from a state court.
	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.
	GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ V. LAMAGNO, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN [Syllabus]
	RASUL V. BUSH [Syllabus] Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	NEVADA V. HICKS [Syllabus] A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
	KSR INT L CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	STINSON V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 36 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WILTON V. SEVEN FALLS CO., 515 U.S. 277 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD. [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Does the district court abuse its discretion by dissolving the injuction against state court proceeding in a single claimant limitation of liability case (46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.) when the claimant guarantees the vessel owner's right to limitation by stipulating that the claim does not exceed the limitation fund; and 2. If so, must the injunction nonetheless be dissolved pursuant to the Saving To Suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. 1333(2)?"
	NEGONSOTT V. SAMUELS, 507 U.S. 99 (1993). [Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL [Syllabus]
	SLACK V. MCDANIEL [Syllabus] If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [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®.
	NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION V. SOLIMINO, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. SAFFOLD [Syllabus] As used in 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), which tolls the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions while a petition for state collateral relief is "pending," the term "pending" covers the time between a lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court; that rule applies to California's collateral review system; and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the question whether respondent's state petition was timely filed.
	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?
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [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)?"
	JONES V. BOCK [Syllabus]
	EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY V. OHIO, 503 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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.
	KEENE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 200 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL [Syllabus] 1. Whether economic sanctions against Burma enacted by Congress in 1996-- three months after enactment of the Massachusetts Burma Law-- implicitly permit, or preempt, state and local selective purchasing laws regarding Burma. 2. Whether selective purchasing law such as the Massachusetts Burma Law represent ""market participation,"" not regulation, and are therefore exempt from claims based on the Foreign Commerce Clause and the foreign affairs power of the federal government. 3. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. 4. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law discriminate against foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause."
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	FLORIDA V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Because the judgment below was not "[f]inal" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
	SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WINSTAR CORP. ET AL., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES [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.
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE V. TULANE ED. FUND, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) [Syllabus]
	REED V. FARLEY, 512 U.S. 339 (1994). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	GONZALEZ V. CROSBY [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 504 U.S. 36 (1992). [Syllabus]
	YLST V. NUNNEMAKER, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	[Syllabus]
	FREYTAG V. COMMISSIONER, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GROWE V. EMISON, 507 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. FRENCH [Syllabus] The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
	HESS V. PORT AUTH.. TRANS-HUDSON CORP., 115 S. CT. 394, 130 L. ED. 2D 245 (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	BANKS V. DRETKE [Syllabus] In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
	MCCLESKEY V. ZANT, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE [Syllabus] Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
	UNITED STATES V. CRAFT [Syllabus] Michigan law gives a tenant by the entirety individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach under 26 U. S. C. §6321.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND, 115 S. CT. 537, 130 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ZADVYDAS V. DAVIS [Syllabus] The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, implicitly limits an alien's detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention; the application of that limitation is subject to federal court review.
	INS V. ST. CYR [Syllabus] Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
	CASPARI V. BOHLEN, 510 U.S. 383 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 519 U.S. 9 (1996) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN DREDGING V. MILLER, 510 U.S. 443 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	VOINOVICH V. QUILTER, 507 U.S. 146 (1993). [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.
	AETNA HEALTH INC. V. DAVILA [Syllabus] Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
	[Syllabus]
	CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [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.
	MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU, 508 U.S. 286 (1993). [Syllabus]
	RUMSFELD V. PADILLA [Syllabus] (1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	PEACOCK V. THOMAS, 516 U.S. 349 (1996). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [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.
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	GILMORE V. TAYLOR, 508 U.S. 333 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ANKENBRANDT V. RICHARDS, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EVANS V. CHAVIS [Syllabus]
	LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) [Syllabus]
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
	REGINA COLLEGE V. RUSSELL, 499 U.S. 225 [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U. S. A., V. CALHOUN, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. V. ROCHE [Syllabus]
	OWEN V. OWEN, 500 U.S. 305 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA DEP'T OF TAXATION, 509 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BOWLES V. RUSSELL [Syllabus]
	KOKKONEN V. GUARDIAN LIFE INS., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). [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.
	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?
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 507 U.S. 529 (1993). [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?
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	TYLER V. CAIN [Syllabus] The rule in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39-that a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt-was not "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court," within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(2)(A).
	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?
	JINKS V. RICHLAND COUNTY [Syllabus] The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute includes a provision, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), that tolls the period of limitations for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The question presented is whether the tolling provision invades state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
	UNITED STATES V. HAGGAR APPAREL CO. [Syllabus]
	MOSKAL V. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 103 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. [Syllabus]
	TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. CARPENTER [Syllabus] Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
	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?
	LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL, INC. V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N, 515 U.S. 582 (1995) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	MAYLE V. FELIX [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI [Syllabus] California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	WEISGRAM  V.  MARLEY CO. [Syllabus] 1. If the District Court erred in admitting the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts and the relief to be awarded is a new trial, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in conflict with its own precedent and decisions of other United States Courts of Appeal if it granted judgment as a matter of law to Marley Company after excising portions of Plaintiffs' experts' testimony?
	ARAVE V. CREECH, 507 U.S. 463 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NORTH STAR STEEL CO. V. THOMAS, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	INGERSOLL-RAND CO. V. MCCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) [Syllabus]
	COLUMBUS V. OURS GARAGE & WRECKERSERVICE, INC. [Syllabus] 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(2)(A)-which excepts "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles" from §14501(c)(1)'s general rule preempting prescriptions by "a State [or] political subdivision of a State . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property"-does not bar a State from delegating to municipalities and other local units the State's authority to establish safety regulations governing motor carriers of property, including tow trucks.
	MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL [Syllabus] The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	TOME V. UNITED STATES, 513 U.S. 150 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. FORDICE, 520 U.S. 273 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP. [Syllabus]
	O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GISBRECHT V. BARNHART [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements between Social Security benefits claimants and their counsel within the ceiling set forth in §406(b)(1)(A); instead it instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.
	CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS [Syllabus] Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
	KONTRICK V. RYAN [Syllabus]
	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)?
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK V. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [Syllabus] A corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands is a "citize[n] or subjec[t] of a foreign state" for purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)(2).
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CASTRO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
	CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ [Syllabus]
	CUSTIS V. UNITED STATES, 114 S. CT. 1732, 128 L. ED. 2D 517 (1994). [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL [Syllabus] There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. KEOHANE, WARDEN, ET AL., 516 U.S. 99 (1996).. [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [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).
	BEECHAM V. UNITED STATES, 114 S. CT. 1669, 114 S. CT. 1669 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CAREY V. MUSLADIN [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	BELL V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [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.
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	BARNES V. GORMAN [Syllabus] Punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under §202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
	TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA V.PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. [Syllabus]
	RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) [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.
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [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."
	KRAFT GEN. FOODS V. IOWA DEP'T OF REVENUE & FINANCE, 505 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BLATCHFORD V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NOATAK, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABISBUYERS’ COOPERATIVE [Syllabus] There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
	FORD V. GEORGIA, 498 U.S. 411 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) [Syllabus]
	SELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
	FITZGERALD V. RACING ASSN. OF CENTRAL IOWA [Syllabus] Can the State of Iowa tax the revenue from slot machines at parimutuel racetracks and the revenue from all casino games on riverboats, including slot machines, at different rates without violating the Equal Protection Clause?
	PEGRAM V. HERDRICH [Syllabus] Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
	MORALES V. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, 504 U.S. 374 (1992). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. KORAY, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. ROBBINS [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
	ALLIED-BRUCE TERMINIX COS. V. DOBSON, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). [Syllabus]
	YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO [Syllabus] (1) Whether, in applying the objective test for a "custody" determination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a court must consider the age and experience of a person if he or she is a juvenile? (2) Whether a state court adjudication can be deemed an "objectively unreasonable" application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), because it declines to "extend" the rule of a Supreme Court precedent to a new context.
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PARKE V. RALEY, 506 U.S. 20 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND V. DEMISAY, 508 U.S. 581 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FIORE V. WHITE [Syllabus] Whether a state can flaunt the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and evade federal habeas corpus relief for an incontestably innocent prisoner by claiming that an appellate decision constitutes ""new law,"" when in fact the state did not and could not prove a key element of the crime at trial? 3. Whether federal habeas relief should be extended to protect federal constitutional rights when a state refuses to retroactively apply a case which based its decision on the already existing clear language of the statute?
	MU'MIN V. VIRGINIA, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HALL STREET ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. V. MATTEL, INC. [Syllabus]
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 738 (1994). [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH [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.
	ROBERTSON V. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOC'Y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. V. BILL HARBERTCONSTR. CO. [Syllabus] Whether a suit to vacate an arbitration award may be brought in the district in which the events in the underlying dispute occurred.
	WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. [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.
	HECK V. HUMPHREY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. JEFFERS, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EDGE BROADCASTING, 509 U.S. 418 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HONDA MOTOR CO. V. OBERG, 512 U.S. 415 (1994). [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.
	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.
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION [Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KEENEY V. TAMAYO-REYES, 504 U.S. 1 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	SHALALA V. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONGTERM CARE, INC. [Syllabus] Whether 42 U.S.C. 405H(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to obtain judicial review under 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) to challenge the validity of Medicare regulations.
	GRUPO MEXICANO DE DESARROLLO, S. A. V. ALLIANCE BOND FUND, INC. [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RENNE V. GEARY, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VONN [Syllabus] A defendant who does not object to a trial court's error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 must satisfy Rule 52(b)'s plain-error rule in order to withdraw a guilty plea; a reviewing court may look beyond the plea colloquy to the whole record in determining whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the Rule 11 error.
	DARBY V. CISNEROS, 509 U.S. 137 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [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.
	IRWIN V. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. [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?
	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.
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. HAMILTON COUNTY [Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	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?"
	RICHARDSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL GREEN CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Flood Control Act of 1928 immunizes Respondent from his suit?"
	SHANNON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [Syllabus]
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SELING V. YOUNG [Syllabus] In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute: Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment."
	FORNEY V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 266 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	COLLINS V. YOUNGBLOOD, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	PERETZ V. UNITED STATES, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus]
	GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JOINER, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) [Syllabus]
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	P.R. AQUEDUCT & SEWER AUTH. V. METCALF & EDDY, INC., 506 U.S. 139 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ROWLAND V. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). [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.
	CELOTEX CORP. V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 300 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS [Syllabus] Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. V. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE [Syllabus] An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
	BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	PIONEER INV. SERVS. V. BRUNSWICK ASSOCS., 507 U.S. 380 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SOLE V. WYNER [Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) [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.
	BAZE V. REES [Syllabus]
	ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA [Syllabus] Whether trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to file a notice of appeal following a guilty plea in the absence a request by the defendant, particularly where the defendant has been advised of his appeal rights.
	RENO V. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONCOMM. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SOLDAL V. COOK COUNTY, ILL., 506 U.S. 56 (1992). [Syllabus]
	POWEREX CORP. V. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	NORTH WEST AIRLINES V. COUNTY OF KENT, MICH., 510 U.S. 355 (1994). [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.
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [Syllabus]
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	STRICKLER V. GREENE [Syllabus]
	FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. [Syllabus] Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
	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?
	ENGINE MFRS. ASSN. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DIST. [Syllabus] Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ZAFIRO V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 534 (1993). [Syllabus]
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	EVANS V. UNITED STATES, 504 U.S. 255 (1992). [Syllabus]
	DECK V. MISSOURI [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	RATZLAF V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 135 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WILL V. HALLOCK [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. V. CASAROTTO ET UX., 517 U.S. 681 (1996). [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	CHANDRIS, INC. V. LATSIS, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TRW INC. V. ANDREWS [Syllabus] The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
	SCHIRO V. FARLEY, 510 U.S. 222 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. IDAHO EX REL. DIR., IDAHO DEP'T OF WATER RESOURCES, 508 U.S. 1 (1993) [Syllabus]
	SISSON V. RUBY, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP [Syllabus] 1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.
	RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES., 517 U.S. 292 (1996). [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	THUNDER BASIN COAL V. REICH, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [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?
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [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.
	RENO V. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 520 U.S. 471 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. V. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [Syllabus]
	STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS, INC. V. MILLER [Syllabus] Kentucky's "Any Willing Provider" statutes are "law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance" under 29 U. S. C. §1144(b)(2)(A) and are therefore saved from pre-emption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	BUFORD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
	CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CAL. V. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) [Syllabus]
	MELKONYAN V. SULLIVAN, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) [Syllabus]
	AUSTIN V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). [Syllabus]
	COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
	REITER V. COOPER, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	TEST TWO V. TEST TWO [Syllabus]
	MEYER V. HOLLEY [Syllabus] The Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault upon a corporate employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.
	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?
	LAMIE V. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE [Syllabus] Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [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?
	UNITED STATES V. JIMENEZ RECIO [Syllabus] A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object.
	VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FIRSTIER MORTGAGE CO. V.INVESTORS MTGE INS. CO., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BFP V. RESOLUTION TRUST CORP., 114 S. CT. 1757, 128 L. ED. 2D 556 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. DAVIS [Syllabus] Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
	NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993). [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.
	CLINGMAN V. BEAVER [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO [Syllabus]
	SIMS V. APFEL [Syllabus] May a federal court, without any statutory or regulatory authority in support thereof, and contrary to the informal non-adversarial nature of the Social Security administrative appeal process, impose an ''issue exhaistion"" requirement upon Social Security claimants in federal court to bar issues that were not specifically raised by the claimant during the administrative appeal process."
	CITY OF EDMONDS V. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UTAH V. EVANS [Syllabus] The Census Bureau's use of "hot-deck imputation" to fill in gaps in census information and resolve conflicts in the data does not violate 13 U. S. C. §195, which forbids use of "the statistical method known as 'sampling' " in determining population for purposes of apportioning congressional Representatives, and is not inconsistent with the Constitution's Census Clause, which requires an "actual Enumeration" of each State's population.
	MISSISSIPPI V. LOUISIANA, 506 U.S. 73 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ [Syllabus]
	DEMORE V. KIM [Syllabus] Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
	BURNS V. UNITED STATES, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 461 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. R. L. C., 503 U.S. 291 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES NAT'L BANK OF ORE. V. INDEPENDENT INS. AGENTS, 508 U.S. 439 (1993) [Syllabus]
	DIGITAL EQUIQ. CORP. V. DESKTOP DIRECT, INC., 511 U.S. 863 (1994). [Syllabus]
	NEWARK MORNING LEDGER V. UNITED STATES, 507 U.S. 546 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CAL. V. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 9 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GROGAN V. GARNER, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SARATOGA FISHING CO. V. J. M. MARTINAC & CO., 520 U.S. 875 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LOGAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LITTON FINANCIAL PRINTING DIVISION V. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME, INC. V. WESTVIRGINIA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES [Syllabus] The "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	COMMISSIONER V. SOLIMAN, 506 U.S. 168 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HAGEN V. UTAH, 510 U.S. 399 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [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?
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]