Volume 524 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 524 of the United States Reports:

Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

* In 1979, the United States sued respondents and others to quiet title to land it sought for a federal park, contending that respondents did not have clear title because the Government had never… Held: The Fifth Circuit had no jurisdiction over respondents' suit. Pp. ____-____. (a) Rule 60(b)'s history and language are inconsistent with the Government's position that an "independent action'' to set aside a judgment requires an independent source of jurisdiction.

United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998), is a United States corporate law and environmental law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the indirect liability of a parent corporation under CERCLA is to be determined by its control over a subsidiary's facility, rather than the relationship between the corporation and subsidiary.

* The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to permit a beneficiary of an employer's group health plan to… Held: An employer may not deny COBRA continuation coverage under its health plan to an otherwise eligible beneficiary because he is covered under another group health plan at the time he elects COBRA coverage. Pp. ____-____.

Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, in death-penalty cases, the constitution does not require juries to be informed of a lesser-included offense that may suit the facts without being death-eligible when the proposed alternative is not a lesser-included offense under state law. In this case, the proposed alternative was manslaughter; however, manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense of felony murder under Nebraska law.

* The Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) allows certain relatives of a decedent to sue for their own pecuniary losses, but does not authorize… Held: Because Congress has chosen not to authorize a survival action for a decedent's pre-death pain and suffering in a case of death on the high seas, there can be no general maritime survival action for such damages. Before Congress enacted DOHSA, admiralty law did not permit an action to recover damages for a person's death.

Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case focusing on legislative interpretation of a firearms chapter of the federal criminal code. The Court was asked to rule on whether a particular statute with the phrase “carries a firearm” should be interpreted so as to be limited to carrying a firearm only on one's person or interpreted more broadly to include carrying a firearm in a vehicle. The Court held that the statute should be construed broadly and that a firearm discovered in a vehicle, including the glove compartment and trunk, would constitute as “carrying” under the statute.

Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that interest earned on client funds held in IOLTA accounts is the "private property" of the client for Takings Clause purposes.

* Respondent Yeskey was sentenced to 18 to 36 months in a Pennsylvania correctional facility, but was recommended for placement in a Motivational Boot Camp for first-time offenders, the successful… Held: State prisons fall squarely within Title II's statutory definition of "public entity,'' which includes "any . . . instrumentality of a State . . . or local government.'' §12131(1)(B).

* Petitioner Hohn filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to vacate his conviction for "use'' of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1), claiming the evidence was insufficient… Held: This Court has jurisdiction under §1254(1) to review denials of applications for certificates of appealability by a circuit judge or a court of appeals panel.

Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Social Security disability claimant seeking court reversal of an agency decision denying benefits may appeal a district court order remanding the case to the agency for further proceedings.

Gebser v. Lago Vista 524 U.S. 274 (1998) is a United States Supreme Court ruling regarding sexual harassment in schools. The case was heard before the Rehnquist Court on March 25, 1998, and decided on June 22, 1998. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that a school district may be liable for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student, but in order for an aggrieved party to recover damages under Title IX, a school official who had authority to address the alleged discrimination must have actual knowledge of the discrimination and must be deliberately indifferent.

* Federal law forbids a person convicted of a serious offense to possess any firearm, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), and requires that a three-time violent felon who violates §922(g) receive an enhanced… Held: The handgun restriction activates the unless clause, making the Massachusetts convictions count under federal law.

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. It was the first time the Court struck down the federal government's "aggressive use of forfeiture" and the only time it has held that an imposed fine was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

* A condition of respondent's Pennsylvania parole was that he refrain from owning or possessing weapons. Held: The federal exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction at parole revocation hearings of evidence seized in violation of parolees' Fourth Amendment rights. The State's use of such evidence does not itself violate the Constitution. See, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3411-3412, 82 L.Ed.2d 677.

* Respondent Schacht filed a state-court suit against the defendants (petitioners here), the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and several of its employees, both in their "personal'' and… Held: The presence in an otherwise removable case of an Eleventh Amendment barred claim does not destroy removal jurisdiction that would otherwise exist. A federal court can proceed to hear the remaining claims, and the District Court did not err in doing so in this case. Pp. ____-____.

Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the death of an attorney's client does not terminate attorney–client privilege with respect to records of confidential communications between the attorney and the client.

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the line-item veto, as implemented in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that the line-item veto gave the President power over legislation unintended by the Constitution, and was therefore a violation of the separation of powers between the two branches.

Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation. The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.

National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, as amended in 1990, (20 U.S.C. § 954(d)(1)), was facially valid, as it neither inherently interfered with First Amendment rights nor violated constitutional vagueness principles. The act in question required the chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to ensure that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which [grant] applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public". Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that reproduction does qualify as a major life activity according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that concern with foreign prosecution is beyond the scope of the Self Incrimination Clause. The case concerned Aloyzas Balsys, a Lithuanian who immigrated to the United States in 1961.

Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings.

* California's "three-strikes'' law provides, among other things, that a convicted felon with one prior conviction for a serious felony-such as assault where the felon inflicted great bodily injury… Held: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings. Pp. ____-____.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), is a landmark employment law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees. Ellerth also introduced a two-part affirmative defense allowing employers to avoid sex discrimination liability if they follow best practices. Ellerth is often considered alongside Faragher.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court identified the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the acts of a supervisory employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment discrimination. The court held that "an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct as well as that of a plaintiff victim."