Volume 541 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 541 of the United States Reports:

Held: A state prisoner ordinarily does not "fairly present" a federal claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition, a brief, or similar papers to find material that will alert it to the presence of such a claim. Pp. 30-34. (a) Assuming that Reese's petition by itself did not properly alert the State Supreme Court to the federal nature of his claim, Reese failed to meet the "fair presentation" standard.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004), was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified how well-informed a defendant had to be to waive their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The defendant in this case had waived his right to counsel and pled guilty to drunk driving, and then had been convicted of drunk driving twice more, with sentences increasing as his convictions piled up. He argued that the judge in the first case had not explained that multiple drunk driving convictions would lead to more severe sentences, so his waiver of counsel had been invalid. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that the judge's warnings had been adequate, and the defendants' waiver was "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent."

South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (2004), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the application of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further determination to resolve the question over the validity of the distinction between the two bodies of water at issue (a canal and an undeveloped wetland) and the Government's broader "unitary waters" argument that all water bodies that are "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act should be considered "unitarily" for purposes of NPDES permitting.

Held: The proper tax assessment against the Partnership suffices to extend the statute of limitations to collect the tax in a judicial proceeding from the general partners who are liable for the payment of the Partnership's debts. Pp. 119-124. (a) Respondents argue that a valid assessment triggering the 10-year increase in the limitations period must name them individually, as they are primarily liable for the tax debt.

Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U.S. 125 (2004), is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided on March 24, 2004. The case concerned the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to preempt state law under § 253(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that customs agents may remove the gas tank from a vehicle crossing the international border in an effort to look for contraband.

National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish et al., 541 U.S. 157 (2004) is a United States Supreme Court ruling about the Freedom of Information Act concerning the release of photos surrounding the suicide of Vince Foster, then Deputy White House Counsel. The court ruled unanimously that a family has the right to invoke a deceased individual's right to privacy and the unwarranted invasion of privacy exception in the Act must have evidence of improper conduct to overturn the exception.

BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided sand and gravel are not "valuable minerals" reserved to the United States Government under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919. The Court sided in a 6–3 decision with the petitioner, BedRoc Limited, and reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court. BedRoc Limited had removed sand and gravel from lands obtained under the Pittman Act, and the United States, the respondent, argued those were reserved to the U.S. Government under that law. William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, that relied on a textualist approach, and was joined by three justices.

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Held: Regulation Z is not an unreasonable interpretation of § 1605. Pp. 238-245. (a) Because respondent does not challenge the Board's authority under § 1604(a) to issue binding regulations, this Court faces only two questions.

Held: The Fleet Rules do not escape pre-emption just because they address the purchase of vehicles, rather than their manufacture or sale. Neither the District Court's interpretation of "standard" to include only regulations that compel manufacturers to meet specified emission limits nor its resulting distinction between purchase and sales restrictions finds support in § 209(a)'s text or the CAA's structure.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.

Held: Petitioners' causes of action are governed by § 1658. Pp. 375-385. (a) Because the meaning of "arising under" in § 1658 is ambiguous, Congress' intent must be ascertained by looking beyond the section's bare text to the context in which it was enacted and the purposes it was designed to accomplish. Pp. 375-377.

Held: A federal court faced with allegations of actual innocence, whether of the sentence or of the crime charged, must first address all nondefaulted claims for comparable relief and other grounds for cause to excuse the procedural default. Normally, a federal court will not entertain a procedurally defaulted constitutional claim in a habeas petition absent a showing of cause and prejudice to excuse the default.

Held: A timely fee application, pursuant to § 2412(d), may be amended after the 30-day filing period has run to cure an initial failure to allege that the Government's position in the underlying litigation lacked substantial justification. Thus, Scarborough's fee application, as amended, qualifies for consideration and determination on the merits. Pp. 413-423.

Held: The case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This Court's jurisdiction is limited to review of "[f]inal judgments . . . rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had." 28 U. S. C. § 1257. The instant case falls outside of the exceptional categories of cases that can be regarded as "final" under § 1257 despite the ordering of further proceedings.

Held: The Ninth Circuit erred in finding that the erroneous instruction eliminated respondent's imperfect self-defense claim and that the state appellate court unreasonably applied federal law by ignoring the unchallenged and uncorrected instruction.

Held: Because the Bankruptcy Court's discharge of a student">student loan debt does not implicate a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, this Court does not reach the question on which certiorari was granted. Pp. 446-455. (a) States may be bound by some judicial actions without their consent.

Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding a cramdown in the value of a loan during a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Held: A party's postfiling change in citizenship cannot cure a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction that existed at the time of filing in a diversity action. This Court has long adhered to the rule that subject-matter jurisdiction in diversity cases depends on the state of facts that existed at the time of filing.

Held: Section 666(a)(2) is a valid exercise of Congress's Article I authority. Pp. 604-610. (a) Sabri's "facial" challenge that § 666(a)(2) must, as an element of the offense, require proof of connection with federal money is readily rejected.

Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile's occupant, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the officer to search the vehicle's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest. Thornton extended New York v. Belton, ruling that it governs even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested has left the vehicle. Thornton also suggests a separate justification for an evidentiary search "when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle." Thornton and Belton were distinguished by Arizona v.

Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court considering whether a prisoner's appeal of proposed execution procedures was equivalent to a habeas corpus petition. The court held unanimously that an appeal of proposed execution procedures is different from a habeas corpus petition because it is not an appeal of a conviction or sentence.

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to overturn a state court's conclusion that a minor was not in custody for Miranda purposes during his police interview. Michael Alvarado helped his friend Paul Soto steal a truck in Santa Fe Springs, California. The truck owner was killed by Soto during the robbery and Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder for his role in the crime. The evidence for Alvarado's conviction was primarily based on statements given by Alvarado during a two-hour police interrogation that occurred when Alvarado's parents brought him to the police station. Alvarado was 17 years old and was not read his Miranda rights before questioning.

Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, applies retroactively to acts prior to its enactment in 1976.

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739 (2004), is a case that was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on 19 April 2004. The question it presented was whether Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act contradicts Section 203(a)(3)(B).

Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held that, because FMCSA lacks discretion to prevent cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, neither NEPA nor the CAA requires FMCSA to evaluate the environmental effects of such operations. The case was argued on 21 April 2004. The question the case presented related to presidential foreign affairs and foreign trade actions exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act.

Held: as relevant here, that state law does not assure the constitutionally required "prompt final judicial decision. " Held: The ordinance meets the First Amendment's requirement that such a licensing scheme assure prompt judicial review of an administrative decision denying a license. Pp. 778-784.

Held: inter alia, that Article V, § 44, of the Colorado Constitution limits redistricting to once per decade, to be completed in the time between the decennial census and the first election of the decade. People ex rel. Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P. 3d 1221, 1231 (2003) (en banc). The court stated: 4 "We recognize and emphasize that the General Assembly has primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts.