Volume 515 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 515 of the United States Reports:

* Respondents filed separate claims under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), which authorizes a civil enforcement action by aggrieved employees or their union… Held: State law is the proper source of the limitations period for civil actions brought to enforce WARN. Pp. __.

* A Mississippi trial court ordered that petitioner Garlotte serve, consecutively, a 3-year prison sentence on a marijuana conviction,… Held: Garlotte was "in custody" under his marijuana conviction when he filed his federal habeas petition. Pp. __. (a) In Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426, this Court allowed two prisoners incarcerated under consecutive sentences to apply for federal habeas relief from sentences they had not yet begun to serve.

* Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant generally must "be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence… Held: The time respondent spent at the treatment center while "released" on bail was not "official detention" within the meaning of § 3585(b). Pp. ____.

Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 12, 1995 the Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed a district court ruling that required the state of Missouri to correct intentional racial discrimination in Kansas City schools by funding salary increases and remedial education programs.

Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that a petitioner who makes a timely challenge to the constitutionality of the appointment of an Officer of the United States is entitled to a decision on the merits of the question under the Appointments Clause. Ryder decision had been used to require a total invalidation of all actions taken by an adjudicator that had been unconstitutionally appointed. Ryder v. United States involves a court-martial of a petitioner, Ryder, who is an enlisted member of the United States Coast Guard that have been convicted of several drug-related counts. The petitioner appealed his conviction to the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, which upheld his conviction.

* After a ship owned by the Cement Division of National Gypsum Co. and insured by the other respondents sank in a winter storm while berthed in a slip owned by petitioner Milwaukee (City), National… Held: Neither a good-faith dispute over liability nor the existence of mutual fault justifies the denial of prejudgment interest in an admiralty collision case.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny", the most stringent level of review, which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of the Court, which effectively overturned Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications.

* Petitioner underwriters refused to defend or indemnify respondents under several commercial liability insurance policies in litigation between respondents and other parties over the ownership and… Held: The discretionary standard of Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620, governs a district court's decision to stay a declaratory judgment action during the pendency of parallel state court proceedings. Pp. ____.

* Respondent Rambo received a disability award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) for an injury he sustained while working for petitioner… Held: A disability award may be modified under § 22 where there is a change in an employee's wage-earning capacity, even without any change in the employee's physical condition. Pp. ____. (a) A narrow reading of the phrase "change in conditions" is not supported by the Act's language, structure, and purpose.

* Respondent Jones brought this "constitutional tort" action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five named policemen, claiming that they used excessive force when they arrested him… Held: A defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a "genuine" issue of fact for trial. Pp. ____. (a) Three background principles guide the Court.

* On his 1986 federal income tax return, Erich Schleier (hereinafter respondent) included as gross income the backpay portion, but not the liquidated damages portion, of an award that he received in… Held: Recovery under the ADEA is not excludable from gross income.

* Respondent Latsis' duties as a superintendent engineer for petitioner Chandris, Inc., required him to take voyages on Chandris' ships. Held: The "employment-related connection to a vessel in navigation" necessary for seaman status comprises two basic elements: the worker's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, id., at 355, 111 S.Ct., at 817, and the worker must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or an…

* After petitioner Witte pleaded guilty to a federal marijuana charge, a presentence report calculated the base offense level under the… Held: Because consideration of relevant conduct in determining a defendant's sentence within the legislatively authorized punishment range does not constitute punishment for that conduct within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause, Witte's prosecution on cocaine charges does not violate the prohibition against multiple punishments.

* Invoking the federal court's jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, petitioners alleged in their complaint that they had suffered physical injuries and property damage as a result of an… Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 23 F.3d 402 (CA4 1994), reversed and remanded. 1

Held: that Oklahoma’s fuels tax 5 is levied on retailers, not on distributors or consumers. The respect due to the Chickasaw Nation’s sovereignty, the Tribe maintains, means Oklahoma — absent congressional permission — may not collect its tax for fuel supplied to, and sold by, the Tribe at its convenience stores.

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a statute creates a liberty interest for incarcerated people only if it imposes "atypical and significant hardship" in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.

United States v. Gaudin, 516 U.S. 206 (1995) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held the trial judge's refusal to submit the question of "materiality" to the jury was unconstitutional. If materiality is a required element of the offense, it must be presented to the jury, which must determine it beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

* After a New York fruit distributor's produce was damaged in transit from Morocco to Massachusetts aboard respondent vessel, which was owned by respondent Panamanian company and… Held: COGSA does not nullify foreign arbitration clauses contained in maritime bills of lading. Pp. ____. (a) Examined with care, § 3(8) does not support petitioner's argument that a foreign arbitration clause lessens COGSA liability by increasing the transaction costs of obtaining relief.

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding free speech rights, specifically the rights of groups to determine what message their activities convey to the public. The Court held that a state may not compel private citizens organizing a public demonstration to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want their demonstration to present, even if the state's intent was to prevent discrimination.

* In the Oklahoma state courts, petitioners successfully challenged certain state taxes as violating the dormant commerce clause. Held: Section 1983 provides no basis for courts to issue injunctive or declaratory relief in state tax cases when there is an adequate remedy at law. This Court has long held that courts should adopt a hands-off approach with respect to state tax administration. Dows v. City of Chicago, 11 Wall. 108, 110, 20 L.Ed. 65.

United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that lying to an investigator is not obstruction of justice merely because the investigator would then testify before a grand jury; the accused must specifically intend to influence such proceedings directly. Additionally, the Court announced that a federal district court judge does not have a First Amendment right to disclose that a suspect's phone has been wiretapped.

Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a state's restriction on lawyer advertising under the First Amendment's commercial speech doctrine.

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing regimen implemented by the local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon. Under that regimen, student-athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being allowed to participate in sports. During the season, 10% of all athletes were selected at random for testing. The Supreme Court held that although the tests were searches under the Fourth Amendment, they were reasonable in light of the schools' interest in preventing teenage drug use.

Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case, decided by a 6–3 vote, in which the plaintiffs challenged the Interior Department's interpretation of the word "harm" in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

* Appellees claim in this litigation that Louisiana's congressional redistricting plan (Act 1) is a racial gerrymander that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Held: Appellees lack standing to challenge Act 1.

Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case that focused on First Amendment rights and the Establishment Clause. Vincent Pinette, an active member of the Ku Klux Klan in Columbus, Ohio, wanted to place an unattended cross on the lawn of the Capitol Square during the 1993 Christmas season. Pinette and his fellow members of the KKK submitted their request. The advisory board originally denied this request. However, Pinette and the other members of the Ohio Chapter of the Klan fought this decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The court found in favor of the Klan and the advisory board issued the permit.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications. The University of Virginia provided funding to every student organization that met funding-eligibility criteria, which Wide Awake, the student religious publication, fulfilled. The University's defense claimed that denying student activity funding to the religious magazine was necessary to avoid the University's violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed with the University; constitutional law scholar Michael W.

Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case about the constitutionality of racial gerrymandering in which the Court held that "direct evidence" of legislative purpose could show a racial motive in support of a Shaw v. Reno claim.