Volume 509 — United States Reports

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a school must continue to provide an interpreter under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act even if the child elects to attend a religious school; to do so does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that imprisoned people do not need to be actively experiencing injuries from their confinement conditions before challenging them as cruel and unusual punishment.

* Under the alien legalization program created by Title II of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, an alien unlawfully present in the United States who sought permission to reside… Held: The record is insufficient to allow this Court to decide all issues necessary to determine whether the District Courts had jurisdiction. Pp. ____.

Held: a "ruling declaring a taxing scheme unconstitutional is to be applied prospectively only." Ibid. This rationale supplied "another reason" for refusing relief. Ibid. Even as the Virginia courts were denying relief to petitioners, we were confronting a similar retroactivity problem in James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529 (1991).

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot require that a plaintiff exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review when exhaustion of remedies is not required by either administrative rules or statute.

Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993), is a case that the U.S. Supreme Court decided on June 21, 1993. The Court ruled that the President's executive order requiring all aliens intercepted on the high seas to be repatriated was not limited by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or Article 33 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court required that an antitrust plaintiff alleging predatory pricing must show not only changes in market conditions adverse to its interests, as a threshold matter, but must show on the merits that (1) the prices complained of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs, and (2) that the competitor had a reasonable prospect or a "dangerous probability" of recouping its investment in the alleged scheme.

* the police — undermined its initial holding. Held: Respondents are not entitled to absolute immunity. Pp. ____. Held: Respondents are not entitled to absolute immunity. Pp. ____. (a) Certain immunities were so well established when § 1983 was enacted that this Court presumes that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish them. Most public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity.

* In 1986, respondent Schaefer filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits, which was denied by petitioner Secretary at the administrative level. Held: The 30-day period for filing an application for EAJA fees begins immediately upon expiration of the time for appeal of a "sentence-four remand order." Pp. ____.

* Kentucky permits the involuntary commitment of mentally retarded or mentally ill individuals who present a threat of danger to themselves,… Held: Respondents' claim that the statutes should be reviewed under a heightened scrutiny standard is not properly presented, since it was not raised below and the lower courts ruled only on the ground of rational-basis review. P. ____. 2. The distinctions between the two proceedings are consistent with the Equal Protection Clause.

* A jury found petitioner Johnson guilty of capital murder for a crime he committed when he was 19 years old. Held: The Texas procedures as applied in this case were consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under this Court's precedents. Pp. ____. (a) A review of the Court's relevant decisions demonstrates the constitutional requirements regarding consideration of mitigating circumstances by sentencers in capital cases.

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), is a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty, and thereby waive the panoply of trial rights, including the right to counsel.

* Congress has enacted federal lottery legislation to assist States in their efforts to control this form of gambling. Held: The judgment is reversed. 956 F.2d 263 (CA 4 1992), reversed.

TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which upheld the decision of the West Virginia state court awarding $19,000 in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff. Although multiple justices recognized that the punitive damages were 526 times the compensatory damages, the Court held a "general concern of reasonableness" should guide courts in determining constitutionally acceptable damages under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination.

* After a full criminal trial, petitioner, the owner of numerous businesses dealing in sexually explicit materials, was convicted of, inter alia, violating federal… Held: RICO's forfeiture provisions, as applied here, did not violate the First Amendment. Pp. ____. (a) The forfeiture here is a permissible criminal punishment, not a prior restraint on speech. The distinction between prior restraints and subsequent punishments is solidly grounded in this Court's cases.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (/ˈdɔːbərt/ DAW-bərt), 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. In Daubert, the Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.

Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to civil forfeiture cases.

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause. In contrast, Janet Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections.

United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning double jeopardy. The case overruled Grady v. Corbin (1990) and revived the traditional Blockburger standard. The case held that subsequent convictions for offenses that contained the same elements were violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993), was a controversial United States Supreme Court case which held that foreign companies acting in foreign countries could nevertheless be held liable for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act if they conspired to restrain trade within the United States, and succeeded in doing so.