Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query firearms returned 31 results.

	CARON V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 308 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEAN [Syllabus] The absence of an actual denial by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of a felon's petition for relief from firearms disabilities precludes judicial review under 18 U. S. C. §925(c).
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997). [Syllabus]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998) [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.
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LOGAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CO., 504 U.S. 505 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999) [Syllabus]
	THORNTON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
	STAPLES V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 600 (1994). [Syllabus]
	SMALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON [Syllabus] Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	BEGAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 508 U.S. 223 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. BOZEMAN [Syllabus] The literal language of Art. IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers-which provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for trial must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it returns him to his original place of imprisonment prior to that trial, charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e)-bars further criminal proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of imprisonment before trial.
	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
	CUSTIS V. UNITED STATES, 114 S. CT. 1732, 128 L. ED. 2D 517 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GROH V. RAMIREZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?