Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query fourteenth and amendment returned 136 results.

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

	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
	UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
	CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	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?
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS [Syllabus] Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	VOINOVICH V. QUILTER, 507 U.S. 146 (1993). [Syllabus]
	VIETH V. JUBELIRER [Syllabus]
	SOLDAL V. COOK COUNTY, ILL., 506 U.S. 56 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [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.
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	ALBRIGHT V. OLIVER, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LEATHERS V. MEDLOCK, 499 U.S. 439 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GREGORY V. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) [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?
	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.
	COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) [Syllabus]
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	[Syllabus]
	CONN V. GABBERT [Syllabus]
	TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LAWRENCE V. TEXAS [Syllabus] 1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
	BURDICK V. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) [Syllabus]
	EDENFIELD V. FANE, 507 U.S. 761 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) [Syllabus]
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) [Syllabus]
	SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA [Syllabus] Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	TXO PRODUCTION CORP. V. ALLIANCE RESOURCES, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION [Syllabus] Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FORD V. GEORGIA, 498 U.S. 411 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BENNIS V. MICHIGAN, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PORTUONDO V. AGARD [Syllabus] Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 509 (1965)-- which prohibited a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's right to remain silent-- to a prosecutor's comment on a testifying defendant's presence in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses?
	WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PAYNE V. TENNESSEE, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CONNECTICUT DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY V. DOE [Syllabus] The Second Circuit's judgment enjoining the public disclosure provisions of Connecticut's "Megan's Law" must be reversed because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact, here, current dangerousness, that is not material to the State's statutory scheme.
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WYOMING V. HOUGHTON [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	GILMORE V. TAYLOR, 508 U.S. 333 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[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?
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	HONDA MOTOR CO. V. OBERG, 512 U.S. 415 (1994). [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.
	MU'MIN V. VIRGINIA, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MORGAN V. ILLINOIS, 504 U.S. 719 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. ALABAMA [Syllabus]
	BURSON V. FREEMAN, 504 U.S. 191 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WILSON V. SEITER, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ROMANO V. OKLAHOMA, 512 U.S. 1 (1994). [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [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.
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE, 112 S. CT. 2727, 120 L. ED. 2D 575 (1992). [Syllabus]
	J.E.B. V. ALABAMA EX REL. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL [Syllabus] Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	RIGGINS V. NEVADA, 504 U.S. 127 (1992). [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC [Syllabus] The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
	GRATZ V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
	NORTHEASTERN FLA. CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GEN. CONTRACTORS V. CITY OF [Syllabus]
	NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 738 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON NORTHERN R. V. FORD, 504 U.S. 648 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAYS, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) [Syllabus]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NORDLINGER V. HAHN, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FOUCHA V. LOUISIANA, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). [Syllabus]
	OVERTON V. BAZZETTA [Syllabus] In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
	GRAHAM V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 461 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BUSH V. VERA, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). [Syllabus]
	LANKFORD V. IDAHO, 500 U.S. 110 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF OKLAHOMA CITY V. DOWELL, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SHAW V. HUNT, 116 S.CT. 1894, 135 L.ED.2D 207 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ROGERS V. TENNESSEE [Syllabus] The Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to petitioner of its decision abolishing the common law " year and a day rule" did not deny petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	POWERS V. OHIO, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) [Syllabus]
	DEVENPECK V. ALFORD [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. [Syllabus] Because California law affords respondent public works project subcontractor sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim for payment under its contracts in state court, the statutory scheme does not deprive respondent of due process when it authorizes the State to order withholding of such payments from the contractor if a subcontractor fails to comply with certain Labor Code requirements; permits the contractor, in turn, to withhold similar sums from the subcontractor; and permits the contractor, or his assignee, to sue the awarding body for alleged breach of the contract.
	HELLER V. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RENNE V. GEARY, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) [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?
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	CONNECTICUT V. DOEHR, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MILLER-EL V. DRETKE [Syllabus]